correctly in some cases".
In short, calls to a stored function located in another database
than the default database, may fail to replicate if the call was made
by SET, SELECT, or DO.
Longer: when a stored function is called from a statement which does not go
to binlog ("SET @a=somedb.myfunc()", "SELECT somedb.myfunc()",
"DO somedb.myfunc()"), this crafted statement is binlogged:
"SELECT myfunc();" (accompanied with a mention of the default database
if there is one). So, if "somedb" is not the default database,
the slave would fail to find myfunc(). The fix is to specify the
function's database name in the crafted binlogged statement, like this:
"SELECT somedb.myfunc();". Test added in rpl_sp.test.
- CREATE PROCEDURE stores database name based on query context instead
of 'current database' as set by 'USE' according to manual.
The bug reporter interpret the filtering statements as bug for
DROP PROCEDURE based on this behavior.
- Removed the code which changes db context.
- Added code to check that a valid db was supplied.
can be not replicable.
Now CREATE statements for writing in the binlog are created as follows:
- the beginning of the statement is re-created;
- the rest of the statement is copied from the original query.
The problem appears when there is a version-specific comment (produced by
mysqldump), started in the re-created part of the statement and closed in the
copied part -- there is closing comment-parenthesis, but there is no opening
one.
The proper fix could be to re-create original statement, but we can not
implement it in 5.0. So, for 5.0 the fix is just to cut closing
comment-parenthesis. This technique is also used for SHOW CREATE PROCEDURE
statement (so we are able to reuse existing code).
The idea is to add DEFINER-clause in CREATE PROCEDURE and CREATE FUNCTION
statements. Almost all support of definer in stored routines had been already
done before this patch.
NOTE: this patch changes behaviour of dumping stored routines in mysqldump.
Before this patch, mysqldump did not dump DEFINER-clause for stored routines
and this was documented behaviour. In order to get full information about stored
routines, one should have dumped mysql.proc table. This patch changes this
behaviour, so that DEFINER-clause is dumped.
Since DEFINER-clause is not supported in CREATE PROCEDURE | FUNCTION statements
before this patch, the clause is covered by additional version-specific comments.
if the function, invoked in a non-binlogged caller (e.g. SELECT, DO), failed half-way on the master,
slave would stop and complain that error code between him and master mismatch.
To solve this, when a stored function is invoked in a non-binlogged caller (e.g. SELECT, DO), we binlog the function
call as SELECT instead of as DO (see revision comment of sp_head.cc for more).
And: minor wording change in the help text.
This cset will cause conflicts in 5.1, I'll merge.
Indeed now that stored procedures CALL is not binlogged, but instead the invoked substatements are,
the restrictions applied by log-bin-trust-routine-creators=0 are superfluous for procedures.
They still need to apply to functions where function calls are written to the binlog (for example as "DO myfunc(3)").
We rename the variable to log-bin-trust-function-creators but allow the old name until some future version (and issue a warning if old name is used).
can't be executed on slave". It will be possible to solve this problem
in more correct way when we will implement WL#2897 "Complete definer support
in the stored routines".
"Interleaved SPs execution is now binlogged properly, "SELECT spfunc()" is binlogged too.
The known remaining issue is binlogging/replication of "a routine is deleted while it is executed" scenario.
and Bug#12297 SP crashes the server if data inserted inside a lon loop
Third commit attempt. With fixes to the issues, showed up after full rebuild and
tests on other hosts.
"Triggers have the wrong namespace"
"Triggers: duplicate names allowed"
"Triggers: CREATE TRIGGER does not accept fully qualified names"
"SHOW TRIGGERS"
Approximative, because it's using our binlogging way (what we call "query"-level) and this is not as good as record-level binlog (5.1) would be. It imposes several
limitations to routines, and has caveats (which I'll document, and for which the server will try to issue errors but that is not always possible).
Reason I don't propagate caller info to the binlog as planned is that on master and slave
users may be different; even with that some caveats would remain.
