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 LIMIT
+
+
+ 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 LOAD ... 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: