maria-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: MariaDB 10.0.14 got rid of replication safety warning without warning in release notes?
Monty, can you please subscribe all your email address to
maria-develoeprs@ ? People reading the list cannot see your emails.
I'm forwarding here the unaltered message from Monty that I was
answering to in my last email.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Michael Widenius <monty@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have again to apologize for a late reply.
> After my last reply to your topic I traveled to China and noticed
> that the firewall there has got much better; You can't access google,
> twitter, facebook, blogspot etc :( I tried to connect over a VPN, but
> that didn't work for me either.
> It did feel a bit strange to not be able to do computer work for more
> than a week, but the lovely people in China who took care of me did
> compensate for that.
>>>>>> "Pavel" == Pavel Ivanov <pivanof@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Pavel> Which key is "the first duplicate key".
>>> The first key that has a duplicate value in the order of keys in the KEY
>>> structure that MariaDB provides for the storage engine.
> Pavel> I'm definitely not that familiar with the relevant MariaDB code, but I
> Pavel> didn't find KEY structure to be passed to any insert-related function.
> Pavel> Can you elaborate (preferably with code references) how this
> Pavel> restriction is supposed to work?
> The following code examples are from 10.0.
> All handler functions get access to the TABLE object, which defines
> the record format and the keys.
> The keys are stored in TABLE->key_info (see table.h, line 1062)
> When one reads a key, one refers to keys according to the number in
> the key_info structure. For example:
> A set of reads by key is done by calling:
> When one calls handler->info() to ask for a which key caused a
> duplicate error, it's supposed to store the first duplicate key (key
> with smallest number) in handler->errkey.
>>> This is the same order that keys are presented in SHOW CREATE TABLE
> Pavel> Why is it safe to assume that keys have the same order on master and on slave?
> Primary and Unique keys should always be ordered the same way on
> master and slave. This is handled by the 'sort_keys()' function that
> you can find at: sql/sql_table.cc, line 2770.
> The only case when this is not the case, is if you add an unique key
> on the slave that was not on the master and there is conflicts when
> you insert things because of this key.
> However, if you do this, I would say that you are on your own.
>>> To help engine writes we are constantly adding new test in the storage
>>> engine test suite, to make it easier for storage engine vendors to
>>> test that their storage engine follows the interface.
>>> We have now added a test to check for the correct behaviour for the
>>> case of INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY.
> Pavel> This is very interesting. Can you say which test it is and what
> Pavel> exactly does it test? Is it present in 10.0.14 or it's only at the
> Pavel> latest 10.0 branch?
> I added a test for this to:
> --echo #
> --echo # MDEV-5168: Ensure that we can disable duplicate key warnings
> --echo # from INSERT IGNORE
> --echo #
> Elena added another test for this in
> See line 142, that start with:
> --let $create_definition = a $int_indexed_col UNIQUE KEY, b $int_indexed_col UNIQUE KEY, c $int_col
>>> Do you have or use a storage engine that doesn't provide the expected value
>>> for the conflicting key ?
> Pavel> I don't have a specific example of storage engine that detects
> Pavel> duplicate key in different order, but I'm not convinced and don't have
> Pavel> hard proof that such engine cannot exist and that InnoDB itself is not
> Pavel> susceptible to this problem. I can easily imagine though that even
> Pavel> given the particular order of keys in table definition the key
> Pavel> reported as having duplicate can depend on the way storage engine
> Pavel> stores those keys.
> As key order is defined on the upper level, above InnoDB, this should
> be 100 % safe (at least for InnoDB).
> For other store engines, this is safe for any engine that test for
> duplicate key in key order.
> If we ever find a case where it's not safe with any storage engine
> that we deliver with MariaDB, we will fix the storage engine.
> It's ok if they do thing differently so that they can detect duplicate
> key for other keys faster.
> However, it has been required from all storage engines from start that
> if one calls 'handler->info()' to request which key was duplicated,
> they must return the first key.
> If not, they are breaking the storage engine interface (both for MySQL
> and MariaDB) as there is no way the upper level can guarantee that
> things will work identically between storage engines.
> Pavel> BTW, can you point to MySQL documentation and/or comment in the code
> Pavel> that indicates this requirement to storage engine implementation?
> Most of the storage engine interface is not 100 % documented. This is
> one of the case.
> However, I wrote the code related to errkey and this is how it was
> supposed to work.
> In general if something is not documented, then it's up to the people
> that created the interface or are actively working on it to define how
> it should work.
> What is important is that all storage engine should work the same
> way. If one returns something different compared to any of the
> existing engines then it's a bug.
> In this case the implicit documentation is how MyISAM, Aria and InnoDB
> works. All of them returns the first conflicting key.
> Pavel> On the related note Release Notes mention the error log flood
> Pavel> protection. Why it's not behind flag? How should I disable the feature
> Pavel> and get back to the old behavior?
>>> We already had in MariaDB flood protection for some error
> Pavel> Can you say exactly which error messages are suppressed already? Is
> Pavel> there a documentation link about that?
> All 'unsafe logging' errors are suppressed.
> See enum enum_binlog_stmt_unsafe in sql_lex.h
> (This is what I know).
>>> I am happy to look into adding a flag that is usable for any kind of
>>> suppressed messages.
>>> A couple of ways to do this:
>>> a) Not suppress anything if you give --log-warnings a value > 2
>>> b) make LIMIT_UNSAFE_WARNING_ACTIVATION_TIMEOUT a configurable
>>> variable, where 0 would mean no suppression.
>>> Which of the above, or both, would you prefer?
>>> Or do you have any other suggestion of how to do this?
> Pavel> Reading documentation on --log-warnings I don't see how it can be
> Pavel> related to the error suppression. So I think making
> Pavel> LIMIT_UNSAFE_WARNING_ACTIVATION_TIMEOUT configurable would be much
> Pavel> better, though it should apply to all possible error suppressions.
> Currently we only have suppression for a limited set of 'unsafe'
> errors, but I agree that when we add a flag we should name this with
> a general name to be able to reuse it for all possible future
> In 10.1 we are looking at adding a feature that one can suppress any
> error from the error log, but that's a different topic.