Hi Zhenxing, Sven,
you know I'm not exactly a key expert in replication. But due to great
explanations in the bug report, I believe to have some understanding of
the issue.
I know there is an upcoming new patch and I'll be second reviewer for it
too unless someone else takes over. Anyway, I looked into this patch to
see if I can do at least sort of a review.
I have nothing to add to Sven's review, but please answer my below
questions.
Sven Sandberg, 28.07.2008 17:56:
...
> He Zhenxing wrote:
>> #At file:///media/sda3/work/mysql/bzrwork/b37051/5.1-rpl-new/
>>
>> 2632 He Zhenxing 2008-07-25
>> BUG#37051 Replication rules not evaluated correctly
...
> Please begin each test case with comments describing:
...
> - A list of related bugs (BUG#37051).
And please don't forget the synopsis/title.
...
> Please clean up (drop all tables and sync_slave_with_master) at the end
> of the test.
Isn't there an include file that should be used to clean up replication
tests?
...
>> + user_var_entry *var_entry= (user_var_entry
>> *)hash_search(&thd->user_vars,
>> + (const
>> uchar *)name.str,
>> +
>> name.length);
>> + if (var_entry)
>> + table_map_for_update=
>> (table_map)var_entry->val_int(&null_value);
After reading through the patch once, I wondered if we don't need to
distinguish between old masters, where we still need to analyze the
tables in the slave, and new masters, that send the map of update tables.
Do I understand the patch correctly in so far that the assignment above
simply overrides the analyze done by the server, if the master sent a
table map?
If yes, would there be savings if we skip the analyze in case we have
the map from the master?
...
Regards
Ingo
--
Ingo Strüwing, Database Group
Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Bömer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring HRB München 161028
