Chuck Bell wrote:
> Hi Oystein,
>
>>>> 2. I do not understand why the binlog handling is necessary in
>>>> LOGGER::backup_history_log_write/backup_progress_log_write.
>>>> Please, explain. See [1] below.
>>> We must ensure the entries written to the backup logs are not
>>> replicated to the slave. They should never be replicated. See R06.
>>>
>> But can't you turn it off for the entire backup/restore? Do
>> you have to turn it off for every write?
>
> If we don't include it in the logging code, it is possible for the changes
> to be written to the binary log because restore (or backup) complete befores
> the final log entries are written. This way, we are ensured the backup log
> entries are never written to the log. See the other forms of logs -- they do
> exactly the same thing.
Seems reasonable.
>
>>>> 3. Please, verify that restore may not enable slave
>> connections after
>>>> restore when it was disabled before restore. [3]
>>> This is ok. We set disable_slaves = FALSE regardless of whether we
>>> turned it on (set to TRUE) or not. So this is safe to call
>> without a
>>> guard or checking to see if it was set to TRUE previously.
>> And there can not be a scenario where a user has disabled
>> slaves prior to restore and do not want to have them enabled
>> as a side effect of executing restore?
>
> I don't know. I suppose it is possible but it was never considered in the
> lengthy architecture discussions. If you can think of such a scenario where
> a user would indeed like this, we can add it via a feature request (bug
> report). Feel free to do so if you'd like.
I do think I am the right person to do that. I do not even know whether
it is possible to turn off slave connections to a slave, and why you
would do it. I was just asking ...
--
Øystein
