List:Commits« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Alfranio Correia Date:October 19 2009 4:23pm
Subject:Re: Review of WL#5072
View as plain text  
Hi Sven,

Sven Sandberg wrote:
> Hi Alfranio,
> 
> Great work with refactoring and adding comments! The comments you added
> are very clear, making the test *much* easier to follow. I'm very happy
> with this.
> 
> Just one simple problem:
> 
> (S1) Since there is no sync_slave_with_master in
> rpl_implicit_commit_binlog.test, there is a race in the test (so it will
> fail sporadically in pushbuild). See details inline.

I know that. It fails sporadically.

I thought about disabling the test case and re-enabling it as soon as the bug
was fixed. However, I can do what you suggested.

Is this is the only comment you have?


Cheers.


>>
>> --echo
>>
> ###################################################################################
>>
>> --echo #                                        CLEAN
>> --echo
>>
> ###################################################################################
>>
>> connection master;
>>
>> SET SQL_LOG_BIN=0;
>> DROP TABLE tt_1;
>> DROP TABLE tt_2;
>> SET SQL_LOG_BIN=1;
>>
>> connection slave;
>>
>> SET SQL_LOG_BIN=0;
>> DROP TABLE tt_1;
>> DROP TABLE tt_2;
> 
> (S1) There is a race between the slave sql thread and the connection
> issuing 'drop table', since we don't do sync_slave_with_master. If the
> slave sql thread has not received 'create table' yet, then it will fail
> on 'DROP TABLE'.
> 
> There is also a race between the slave sql thread and check-testcase.
> For example, if the slave has executed 'create view' but not 'drop view'
> when check-testcase runs, then check-testcase will report an error.
> 
> I would suggest that you run the entire test with SQL_LOG_BIN=0 on
> master until BUG#46572 is fixed.
> 
>> SET SQL_LOG_BIN=1;
>>
>> #Re-enable this after fixing failures for BUG#46572
>> #sync_slave_with_master;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Thread
Review of WL#5072Sven Sandberg19 Oct
  • Re: Review of WL#5072Alfranio Correia19 Oct
    • Re: Review of WL#5072Sven Sandberg20 Oct
      • Re: Review of WL#5072Alfranio Correia21 Oct