Hello Zardosht!
* Zardosht Kasheff <zardosht@stripped> [13/03/06 06:27]:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Zardosht Kasheff <zardosht@stripped> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > For a bunch of statements, "replace into", "replace into ... select",
> > "load data... replace", we sometimes do not follow the protocol of
> > return an error if we see a duplicate key so that a subsequent update
> > can overwrite the row. Instead, we have handler::write_row silently
> > overwrite the data and report success.
> >
> > The trouble we have is properly detecting when we are indeed allowed
> > to silently overwrite the row. What we have been doing is checking
> > (thd->lex->duplicates == DUP_REPLACE).
> >
> > We recently found what seems like a corner case where this does not
> > work. During replication on a slave, if slave_exec_mode is set to
> > IDEMPOTENT, then thd->lex->duplicates is set to DUP_REPLACE, but the
> > operation is not just a silent overwrite. The operation works like an
> > insert on duplicate key update, where the updated row is dependent on
> > the existing row and the inserted row.
> >
> > My questions:
> > - why is DUP_REPLACE being set in this case in replication?
> > - What is the proper way to determine when we can safely silently
> > overwrite an existing row. We already check for having a binary log in
> > row format and for triggers. It seems checking thd->lex->DUP_REPLACE
> > is not sufficient.
Have you seen HA_EXTRA_WRITE_CAN_REPLACE ?
AFAIR it was added to implement optimization similar
to the one you describe for NDB cluster.
Best regards,
Dmitry
--
Dmitry Lenev, Software Developer
Oracle Development SPB/MySQL, www.mysql.com
Are you MySQL certified? http://www.mysql.com/certification
