← Back to team overview

maria-developers team mailing list archive

Re: Unexpected contents of mysql.gtid_slave_pos


Thanks for the explanation.
I see why the record is there, but I still consider it a glitch because the
event was not replicated to that server. It was originated there. In other
topologies (which do not include log-slave-update in any node) there is no
such problem.
This issue does not prevent the setup. As I mentioned before, the star
topology works to my satisfaction. Expect an article on this topic in next
week (after the ones about fan-in and all-masters point-to-point




On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:

> Giuseppe Maxia <g.maxia@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Thanks for the quick answer. What you are saying is that the transaction
> in
> > node 101 is retained because it is part of the stream coming from node
> 100.
> Yes.
> > Here I note a difference with the usage of domain_ids.
> > * If the domain_id is the same, then the transaction from 101 is
> discarded
> > and replaced by the latest events coming from 100.
> > * If I set a different domain ID for each master, the transaction from
> 101
> > is retained even if I then insert hundreds of events from 100 while 101
> > stays idle.
> The way it works is that @@gtid_slave_pos records, for each configured
> domain_id, the last GTID seen within that replication domain. So in
> general,
> @@gtid_slave_pos will have as many elements as there are domains in the
> replication topology (though a domain can appear empty if no GTIDs were
> ever
> replicated from it on a given server).
> So this difference is always there: configuring one more domain_id will
> result in one extra entry in @@gtid_slave_pos.
> In a simple replication topology with only a single master, domain_id is
> not
> needed. Slaves preserve commit order from their master, so the order of
> GTIDs in all binlogs is the same, and a slave that reconnects need only
> start at the point of the last GTID it applied before. When a slave
> switches
> to a new master, it is essential that binlog order is the same on old and
> new master for this to work correctly.
> With multiple masters (multi-source, or ring-topology, or otherwise), in
> general we can not be sure that binlog order will be identical between old
> and new master when a slave switches master. This is the purpose of
> domain_id. Effectively, it makes the binlog consist of independent streams,
> one per replication domain. The slave keeps track of its position (last
> applied GTID) for each domain individually. Then only order within each
> stream needs to be consistent for slave connect to new master to work
> correctly. And this is ensured by configuring domain_id so that each has at
> most one master active at any one time.
> So in your star topology, if you configure different domain ids, and you
> have a slave off one endpoint, you can switch it to use a different
> endpoint
> (or they hub) as a new master - and later switch it back. This requires
> remembering the position within each domain indefinitely.
> If you were to use the same domain id everywhere, replication would still
> work, same as in non-GTID mode. But you would not be able to easily switch
> a
> slave from one endpoint to another - again the same as in non-GTID mode.
> > To give you a clearer view of what I am doing, I am experimenting with a
> > star topology, where I have endpoints that are masters connected to a
> hub,
> > which is the node with log-slave-updates enabled. The topology works
> > perfectly: data produced in the endpoints or in the hub reach all the
> other
> > endpoints. The only glitch is the endpoints (master nodes without
> > log-slave-updates) have their own transactions in gtid_slave_pos long
> after
> > purging the logs in all nodes.
> If this entry was missing, it would mean that upon next slave connect, that
> server should fetch _all_ events in that domain (that it created itself)
> from the master, only to skip them because of --replicate-save-server-id=0.
> Which surely is not intended.
> I guess the thing that is not clear to me is why you consider this a
> glitch?
> Does it create any problems for your setup?
>  - Kristian.