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.
