maria-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: 14c2f90ad08: Idempotent INSERT events for system versioning
Andrei, thanks for explanation!
Agree with you and Sergei on that topic.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:04 PM Sergei Golubchik <serg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi, Aleksey!
> On Mar 12, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> > Hi, Sergei,
> > Thank you for observations! This task is in progress. While doing it I
> > found out that RBR doesn't replicate timestamp fractions. That is: it
> > gets seconds from event timestamp marker and adds fractions from
> > system time. This causes bugs in System Versioning. More on it in Bug
> > 6 here:
> > I propose to fix it by adding timestamp fractions field to Log_event
> > header after FLAGS_OFFSET. To support backwards compatibility it is
> > needed to increment fdle->binlog_version and probably add new flag
> > LOG_EVENT_HAS_SEC_PART_F (for support sending Log_event without
> > fractions).
> > Do you agree?
> Query_log_event() can already store microseconds, see Q_HRNOW flag.
> So better to add them to Rows_log_event, if needed.
> But I don't quite understand why it's needed.
In scope of MDEV-16370 slave adds history record. Master sends UPDATE of row
(row_start = X.Y; row_end = MAX). Query time is X.(Y + n).
Slave adds history record and gets timestamp: X from master; F from system
If F < Y this makes bad history record (row_start = X.Y; row_end = X.F).
> What you see - microseconds from the system time and seconds from the
> binlog event - is a workaround for replicating non-versioned master to
> versioned slave, where binlog events don't have microseconds.
> In your case versioned-to-versioned RBR, row events should have
> microsecond-exact timestamps already, you can get them from there.
> Only Delete_rows_log_event might not have the actual timestamp(6),
> but this can be fixed on the master, I suspect.
> Chief Architect MariaDB
> and security@xxxxxxxxxxx
All the best,