List:Backup« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Rafal Somla Date:September 22 2009 9:23am
Subject:Re: MOM-BACKUP-090901 action items closed - decision required
View as plain text  
Hi,

Ingo Strüwing wrote:
> Hi Rafal,
> 
> Rafal Somla, 22.09.2009 07:57:
> 
>> Note that I proposed another solution for the problem in BUG#47484
>> (mentioned in the bug report). This is to have the logical drivers save
>> and restore AUTO_INCREMENT in the table data snapshot they create. Thus
>> no need to change image format.
> 
> Thanks for the proposal. Please note that I added this clarification to
> the bug report:
> "
> IMHO it is just by chance, not by design, that the MyISAM driver
> preserves that auto_increment value.
> 
> The MEMORY driver does _not_ preserve the value. I'm sorry if I was
> unclear about it. A restored MEMORY table shows tha auto_increment value
> as the highest existing value plus one. This is not necessarily the same
> value as of the time of backup. The value can be higher than max+1, not
> only by explicit ALTER, but also by deleting the row with the max value.
> "
>

OK, I understand this.

> If we want to handle AUTO_INCREMENT through the drivers, we must
> document another requirement for native drivers, and change both,
> default and CS drivers. The resulting images may come as a surprise to
> old MySQL servers. They might fail on the additional information in the
> table data chunks.
> 

Agree - the solution which I propose would involve such new requirement on 
drivers and ensuring it in the existing drivers (default and CS). As for the 
"resulting images may come as a surprise to old MySQL servers" - come on! - 
we have just decided that changing time format in the image is not a problem 
and this would be even bigger surprise to the old MySQL servers.

> I wonder if this change can be understood as not to change the image
> format, while using the "extra" metadata information can be understood
> as a change in the image format. In contrast, I would expect, "old"
> servers to ignore the "extra" metadata information, and read over it,
> since it is not used yet.
> 

The backup image format does not specify the format of table data snapshots 
produced by the drivers. In that sense, changing table data snapshot format 
is not changing the backup image format per se. However, backup/restore 
drivers must be able to handle the snapshots they create including handling 
different fromats if present.


> But I might fail to understand what the initial purpose for the "extra"
> information was. Perhaps using it for an auto_increment value would
> violate the design. Can you please explain?
>

No, I did not understand your suggestion completely. Indeed, for each table 
there is extra_data field in the metadata record for that table and it could 
be used for storing AUTO_INCREMENT value. Then the general handling of 
AUTO_INCREMENT could be implemented without changing current image format. 
In that case I think it is a better alternative than my suggestion.

Rafal


Thread
MOM-BACKUP-090901 action items closed - decision requiredIngo Strüwing21 Sep
  • Re: MOM-BACKUP-090901 action items closed - decision requiredRafal Somla22 Sep
    • Re: MOM-BACKUP-090901 action items closed - decision requiredIngo Strüwing22 Sep
      • Re: MOM-BACKUP-090901 action items closed - decision requiredRafal Somla22 Sep
        • Re: MOM-BACKUP-090901 action items closed - decision requiredIngo Strüwing22 Sep
          • Re: MOM-BACKUP-090901 action items closed - decision requiredRafal Somla23 Sep