maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Pavel Ivanov <pivanof@xxxxxxxxxx>]

A note from a peanut gallery: I think issuing a warning only when an
actual conflict occurs is a bad idea, because due to a specific row
order conflict may not occur on the master, but occur on slaves. And
that can lead to a very bad replication breakage.

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Kristian Nielsen
<knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sergei Golubchik <serg@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Anyway, it seems that we agree not to push it into 10.0.
>> What do you think - shall it be pushed into 10.1 or not at all?
>
> Well, as I said, I wouldn't have prioritised fixing that bug. However, now
> that you've made the patch, I think it's ok to push it to 10.1 if you want.
>
> This only concerns UPDATE of unique key on non-transactional table. That's
> already a fairly edge-case scenario. So pushing this to 10.1 should not make
> much difference one way or the other. And the patch as such looks fine.
>
> (Just fix the incorrect comment and possibly elaborate the commit message if
> you decide to push).
>
>  - Kristian.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> Post to     : maria-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp