Hi Daniel!

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Daniel Black <daniel.black@au1.ibm.com> wrote:

On 24/01/17 04:30, SachinSetiya wrote:
> revision-id: ef590faa0e21d25a2dc5153f938135612b17ecbc (mariadb-10.1.20-31-gef590fa)

> thd_proc_info(thd, message);
> + DBUG_EXECUTE_IF("should_sleep_for_mdev7409",{
> + my_sleep(500000);
> + };);

Shouldn't these be DEBUG_SYNC_C("do_exec_row");

and then use debug_sync to generate test synchronisation.

I tried using DEBUG_SYNC and DEBUG_SYNC_C

int

Write_rows_log_event::do_exec_row(rpl_group_info *rgi)

{

DBUG_ASSERT(m_table != NULL);

const char *tmp= thd->get_proc_info();

char *tmp_db= thd->db;

char *message, msg[128];

my_snprintf(msg, sizeof(msg),"Write_rows_log_event::write_row() on table %s",

m_table->s->table_name.str);

thd->db= m_table->s->db.str;

message= msg;

#ifdef WSREP_PROC_INFO

my_snprintf(thd->wsrep_info, sizeof(thd->wsrep_info) - 1,

"Write_rows_log_event::write_row(%lld) on table %s",

(long long) wsrep_thd_trx_seqno(thd), m_table->s->table_name.str);

message= thd->wsrep_info;

#endif /* WSREP_PROC_INFO */

thd_proc_info(thd, message);

DEBUG_SYNC_C("write_row_log_event__do_exec_row");

and in mtr test

--connection slave

SET DEBUG_SYNC= 'write_row_log_event__do_exec_row SIGNAL fdfdffd WAIT_FOR fsdfsdfsdf';

But mtr test is not waiting, this is because ::do_exec_row is called by SQL thread is there a way to

stop SQL thread and add sync points ?

> int error= write_row(rgi, slave_exec_mode == SLAVE_EXEC_MODE_IDEMPOTENT);
> thd_proc_info(thd, tmp);
> + thd->db= tmp_db;
>
> if (error && !thd->is_error())
> {
> @@ -12371,32 +12380,45 @@ int Delete_rows_log_event::do_exec_row(rpl_group_info *rgi)
> {
> int error;
> const char *tmp= thd->get_proc_info();
> - const char *message= "Delete_rows_log_event::find_row()";
> + char *tmp_db= thd->db;
> + char *message, msg[128];
> + my_snprintf(msg, sizeof(msg),"Delete_rows_log_event::find_row() on table %s",
> + m_table->s->table_name.str);
> + thd->db= m_table->s->db.str;
> + message= msg;

Why assign a pointer? Isn't defining message as a char[128] sufficient?

Because, I do not have any better option