Dmitry Lenev wrote:
> * Dmitry Lenev <Dmitry.Lenev@stripped> [10/09/20 10:53]:
> > Here are my comment about your patch:
> > * Li-Bing.Song@stripped <Li-Bing.Song@stripped> [10/09/16 13:40]:
> > > #At file:///home/anders/work/bzrwork1/wt2/mysql-5.1-bugteam/ based on
> > >
> > > 3489 Li-Bing.Song@stripped 2010-09-16
> > > Bug#56226 Table map set to 0 after altering MyISAM table
> > >
> > > A MyISAM table's table_map_id will always be reset to 0 after
> > > only its metadata. 0 is a valid value of table_map_id. But the
> problem will
> > > cause that more than one tables have the same table_map_id 0. If more
> > > one tables which's table_map_id are 0 are updated in one statement,
> the update
> > > of these different tables will be write into only one rows event. It
> > > cause slave server to crash.
> > >
> > > After this patch, table_map_id always be refreshed as a correct value
> > > altered only its metadata.
> > ...
> > > === modified file 'sql/sql_base.cc'
> > > --- a/sql/sql_base.cc 2010-07-20 18:07:36 +0000
> > > +++ b/sql/sql_base.cc 2010-09-16 09:35:41 +0000
> > > @@ -662,6 +662,7 @@ void close_handle_and_leave_table_as_loc
> > > share->set_table_cache_key(key_buff,
> > > old_share->table_cache_key.length);
> > > share->tmp_table= INTERNAL_TMP_TABLE; // for
> > > + share->table_map_id= ~0UL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -3082,7 +3083,8 @@ bool reopen_table(TABLE *table)
> > > tmp.maybe_null= table->maybe_null;
> > > tmp.status= table->status;
> > >
> > > - tmp.s->table_map_id= table->s->table_map_id;
> > > + if (table->s->table_map_id != ~0UL)
> > > + tmp.s->table_map_id= table->s->table_map_id;
> > >
> > I don't think that there is a situation when it makes sense to
> > inherit table_map_id from old version of share here.
> > Especially since, AFAIU, shares for TABLE objects for which
> > reopen_table() is called are always dummy and not a real shares.
> > So I think it makes sense simply to remove this line and keep
> > close_handle_and_leave_table_as_lock() as is.
> After reading comment from He Zhenxing I've decided that my comment
> needs clarification:
> Actually, I think that inheriting table_map_id in reopen_table() from
> old share is ALWAYS WRONG. We are opening a new share which may
> correspond to new version of structure and therefore new table_map_id
> is needed (otherwise e.g. invalidation of prepared statements may break,
> I also suspect that this might cause problems for replication).
> Because of this I think that He Zhenxing's proposal to preserve
> table_map_id value from old share in close_handle_and_leave_table_as_lock()
> is a bad idea.
Yes, you're right, prepared statement would fail if reuse the old
> Dmitry Lenev, Software Developer
> Oracle Development SPB/MySQL, www.mysql.com
> Are you MySQL certified? http://www.mysql.com/certification