From: jon.stephens Date: February 17 2009 10:51am Subject: svn commit - mysqldoc@docsrva: r13806 - in trunk: refman-4.1 refman-5.0 refman-5.1 refman-6.0 List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/commits/66620 Message-Id: <200902171051.n1HApMlt004089@docsrva.mysql.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Author: jstephens Date: 2009-02-17 11:51:21 +0100 (Tue, 17 Feb 2009) New Revision: 13806 Log: Clarified that you need an ORDER BY for DML statements using LIMIT to replicate correctly (with SBR). Modified: trunk/refman-4.1/replication.xml trunk/refman-5.0/replication-notes.xml trunk/refman-5.1/replication-notes.xml trunk/refman-6.0/replication-notes.xml Modified: trunk/refman-4.1/replication.xml =================================================================== --- trunk/refman-4.1/replication.xml 2009-02-17 09:40:59 UTC (rev 13805) +++ trunk/refman-4.1/replication.xml 2009-02-17 10:51:21 UTC (rev 13806) Changed blocks: 1, Lines Added: 13, Lines Deleted: 0; 903 bytes @@ -2299,6 +2299,19 @@ + + + DELETE, + UPDATE, and INSERT ... + SELECT statements containing a + LIMIT clause are not guaranteed to produce + the same result on the slave as on the master, since the order + of the rows affected is not defined. Such statements can be + replicated correctly only if they also contain an + ORDER BY clause. + + + Modified: trunk/refman-5.0/replication-notes.xml =================================================================== --- trunk/refman-5.0/replication-notes.xml 2009-02-17 09:40:59 UTC (rev 13805) +++ trunk/refman-5.0/replication-notes.xml 2009-02-17 10:51:21 UTC (rev 13806) Changed blocks: 1, Lines Added: 16, Lines Deleted: 0; 1002 bytes @@ -663,6 +663,22 @@ +
+ + Replication and <literal>LIMIT</literal> + + + Replication of LIMIT clauses in + DELETE, + UPDATE, and INSERT ... + SELECT statements is not guaranteed, since the order + of the rows affected is not defined. Such statements can be + replicated correctly only if they also contain an ORDER + BY clause. + + +
+
Replication and <literal>LOAD ...</literal> Operations Modified: trunk/refman-5.1/replication-notes.xml =================================================================== --- trunk/refman-5.1/replication-notes.xml 2009-02-17 09:40:59 UTC (rev 13805) +++ trunk/refman-5.1/replication-notes.xml 2009-02-17 10:51:21 UTC (rev 13806) Changed blocks: 1, Lines Added: 5, Lines Deleted: 2; 952 bytes @@ -1423,8 +1423,11 @@ in DELETE, UPDATE, and INSERT ... SELECT statements is unsafe since the order of the - rows affected is not defined. Beginning with MySQL 5.1.24, when - such a statement is encountered: + rows affected is not defined. (Such statements can be replicated + correctly when using STATEMENT mode only if + they also contain an ORDER BY clause.) + Beginning with MySQL 5.1.24, when such a statement (without + ORDER BY) is encountered: Modified: trunk/refman-6.0/replication-notes.xml =================================================================== --- trunk/refman-6.0/replication-notes.xml 2009-02-17 09:40:59 UTC (rev 13805) +++ trunk/refman-6.0/replication-notes.xml 2009-02-17 10:51:21 UTC (rev 13806) Changed blocks: 1, Lines Added: 5, Lines Deleted: 2; 950 bytes @@ -1439,8 +1439,11 @@ in DELETE, UPDATE, and INSERT ... SELECT statements is unsafe since the order of the - rows affected is not defined. Beginning with MySQL 6.0.5, when - such a statement is encountered: + rows affected is not defined. (Such statements can be replicated + correctly when using STATEMENT mode only if + they also contain an ORDER BY clause.) + Beginning with MySQL 6.0.5, when such a statement (without + ORDER BY) is encountered: