List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:(Hal Date:June 14 2011 3:07pm
Subject:Re: Found a possible replication bug in 5.5.8/5.5.11
(auto-increment in primary key)
View as plain text  
>>>> 2011/06/13 22:38 -0400, Hank >>>>
But that bug report was closed two years ago.  I have no idea if it's the
server sending bad data or the slaves. I think it's the slaves, because on
the slave error, it clearly is getting this statement:  "insert into test
values (1,null)" to replicate, but when it is executed, the "null" is
converted into a random number.  But it's happening on all of my slaves, a
mix of 32 and 64 bit 5.5.8 and 5.5.11 boxes.
<<<<<<<<

If the master were sending random big numbers, and replication on the slave in the usual
way handled out-of-bound numbers when not allowed to fail, then 65535 would be an
expected value for a signless 16-bit number. Of course, if this were true, the slave
would be getting not that statement but "insert into test values (1,469422)".

Thread
Found a possible replication bug in 5.5.8/5.5.11 (auto-increment inprimary key)Hank14 Jun
  • Re: Found a possible replication bug in 5.5.8/5.5.11 (auto-incrementin primary key)Claudio Nanni14 Jun
    • Re: Found a possible replication bug in 5.5.8/5.5.11 (auto-incrementin primary key)Hank14 Jun
      • Re: Found a possible replication bug in 5.5.8/5.5.11 (auto-incrementin primary key)Hank14 Jun
        • Re: Found a possible replication bug in 5.5.8/5.5.11 (auto-incrementin primary key)Claudio Nanni14 Jun
          • Re: Found a possible replication bug in 5.5.8/5.5.11 (auto-incrementin primary key)Hank14 Jun
      • Re: Found a possible replication bug in 5.5.8/5.5.11(auto-increment in primary key)hsv15 Jun
        • Re: Found a possible replication bug in 5.5.8/5.5.11 (auto-incrementin primary key)Hank15 Jun
          • Re: Found a possible replication bug in 5.5.8/5.5.11 (auto-incrementin primary key)Claudio Nanni15 Jun