The patch for WL 1563 added a new duplicate key error message so that the
key name could be provided instead of the key number. But the error code
for the new message was used even though that did not need to change.
This could cause unnecessary problems for applications that used the old
ER_DUP_ENTRY error code to detect duplicate key errors.
Adding an event that can be used to denote that an incident occured
on the master. The event can be used to denote a gap in the replication
stream, but can also be used to denote other incidents.
In addition, the injector interface is extended with functions to
generate an incident event. The function will also rotate the binary
log after generating an incident event to get a fresh binary log.
field does not work
Fix to prevent MyISAM from reading data from NULL BLOB.
Fix to make record comparison independent of values of unused bits in
record.
Updating binlog positions in tests.
correctly in some cases", from 5.0.
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.
sp_head.cc automerged, only the test and test's result had to be hand-merged.
- Merge patch.
- Test case needed update because event number were off.
- Error code has changed because db name validation rules
changes between 5.0 and 5.1
- 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.
calling (rather than defining) non-deterministic SP in SBR (as opposed
to RBR or mixed) will throw an error now.
require mixed mode for tests now. SBR will now fail when calling
non-deter SPs and SFs (as it should), and RBR already failed by virtue of
giving different results for "show binlog" than the results-file has.
also test for 16456 now. lastly make amends because one of the tests
fails with a new error # now as code was added to sql_trigger.cc while
test was disabled.
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).
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.
"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.
