maria-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Mdev-14586 Assertion `0' failed in retrieve_auto_increment upon attempt to drop PK
I agree with the patch, I think it's correct.
Good tests too.
I wasn't able to understand the bug from the commit comment though,
Ok to push (preferrably with the improved commit message).
On Jan 19, Sachin Setiya wrote:
> Hi serg , please review the latest patch
> commit d9641478bb8f6045039a3d942f2925ada334907e
> Author: Sachin Setiya <sachin.setiya@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri Jan 19 19:33:45 2018 +0530
> MDEV-14586 Assertion `0' failed in retrieve_auto_increment ...
> If we create table using myisam/aria then this crashes the server.
> CREATE TABLE t1(a bit(1), b int auto_increment , index(a,b));
> insert into t1 values(1,1);
> Or this query
> CREATE TABLE t1 (b BIT(1), pk INTEGER AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY);
> ALTER TABLE t1 ADD INDEX(b,pk);
> INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (1,b'1');
> ALTER TABLE t1 DROP PRIMARY KEY;
> The reason for this is
> 1st- Since bit field is stored in record null bits itself , so
> find_ref_key in open_binary_frm will wrongly set share->next_number_key_offset
> and share->next_number_keypart (both set to 0).
I would say that
find_ref_key() finds what key an auto_increment field belongs to by
comparing key_part->offset and field->ptr. But BIT fields might have
zero length in the record, so a key might have many key parts with the
same offset. That is, comparing offsets cannot uniquely identify the
correct key part.
> 2nd- Since next_number_key_offset is zero it myisam/aria will think that
> auto_increment is in first part of key.
> 3nd- myisam/aria will call retrieve_auto_key which will see first key_part
> field as a bit field and call assert(0)
Many key parts might have the same offset, but BIT fields do not
support auto_increment. So, we can skip all key parts over BIT fields,
and then comparing offsets will be unambiguous.
> Although the bit field is stored in record null_byte but in key file(.MYI)
> this does not hold true. Bit(1-7) will take one byte of memory. So the correct
> approach will be to never call retrieve_auto_increment in the case when
> bit field is in the starting of index. So I have changed the find_ref_key
> function to take account that if first N fields is Bit field then simply go
> to next field which is not Bit field.
Chief Architect MariaDB