Zhen Xing, hello.
Thanks for spelling out those subtle issues to me on #rep.
[12:03]<andrei> jasonh: i see one important point now. slave does not know
whether `set insert_id N; query' pair is after a stored
procedure or not.
However, my offering to be content with only having a doc lines
[12:06]<andrei> jasonh: that means the warning about the buggy master does not
look as an option but rather to doc it only.
is not because of the fact above.
There should not be any warning in your bug use case - master 5.0 -
because we are going to comply with the specified behavior, which says
there is no set insert_id hint for a trigger of sf() in the following query.
You said that there is the same issue with incorrect set insert_id on
master 5.1.x, x < 12. In such case the warning has to be issued.
We could possibly narrow the number of exranous warnings with doing a
test if the entire statement has write-looked at least one auto-inc
table; condider the lines of bug#19630 fix
+ if (!table->placeholder() && !table->schema_table &&
+ table->table->found_next_number_field &&
+ (table->lock_type >= TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE))
to deploy near the master version check.
As well as there should be some counter controlling at most one
warning per the top level statement.
<jasonh> andrei:
I don't print a warning in
rpl_master_bug33029, maybe this function should be named:
rpl_master_maybe_bug33029
So let's The name is up you.
regards,
Andrei
