From: Marcus Bointon
Date: April 23 2008 8:41pm
Subject: Re: innodb replication
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/replication/1261
Message-Id: <2FAB55CB-07A6-45E8-B691-E14D1BDBBF05@synchromedia.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 23 Apr 2008, at 21:19, Rick James wrote:

> So, effectively the snapshot was at state #1.


Yes. I would expect it to restart the transaction from the last  
committed log position, which will be #1, not some unknown state. When  
it rolls back, it rolls back the log position too - the uncommitted/ 
failed transaction effectively never happened at all. Because we're  
talking about a slave, it can get what happened next from the master's  
logs. If it was a master that we'd restored, I guess it's a different  
matter. OTOH, losing 1 transaction is much less bad than not having a  
workable backup :^)

At least that's my understanding of it.

Marcus
-- 
Marcus Bointon
Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
UK resellers of info@hand CRM solutions
marcus@stripped | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/