maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Jonas Oreland <jonaso@xxxxxxxxxx>]

update on GTID to binlog position handling

1) there is already an implementation available for the gtid index at
https://code.google.com/p/google-mysql/

2) however, we (i) have re-implemented that as part of a different project.
(made a standalone class that provides functionality that includes
reasonably comprehensive unit tests)

3) i've been waiting for pavels republishing of our internal tree, and then
"port" that patch to your branch (e.g MariaDB 10.x)

But, it already quite possible to "port" the published version to MariaDB
10.x

4) I don't know exact state of pavels republishing effort.

Hope this helps!

/Jonas

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:

> So my opinion on these below two points was requested, let's keep it on the
> public mailing list:
>
> >  * Crash-Safe replication with filename and position (not depending on
> >    GTIDs)
> >    Something similar as what is described in the following link would
> >    be good:
> >    http://blog.booking.com/better_crash_safe_replication_for_mysql.html
> >  * Have a way to avoid "SELECT binlog_gtid_pos" when a slave connect to
> >    the master in MASTER_USE_GTID = no
>
> So my personal opinion on this is that I prefer to focus on improving the
> MariaDB GTID implementation. Considerable effort was invested into this,
> and
> the idea is that future development will focus on GTID mode, keeping
> non-GTID mode only as a backward compatibility. Significant effort was made
> to ensure that MariaDB GTID is usable for all existing use-cases of
> replication.
>
> For the first point, GTID replication is already crash-safe.
>
> For the second point, for GTID we in any case need a solution for locating
> GTID position quickly, otherwise GTID replication can have performance
> problems in case of frequent slave connects (and Jonas Oreland has promised
> a patch for this any day now ;-). And once this solution is in, the second
> point should be moot anyway.
>
> Of course, others may have a different opinion. For the second case, I
> suppose the easiest thing is just to remove the code that does SELECT
> binlog_gtid_pos() from the slave, if no-one cares about that functionality
> anyway...
>
> Hope this helps,
>
>  - 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
>