maria-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Interaction between rpl_slave_state and rpl_binlog_state
> where master maintains an "immediate" (without binlog proxy)
> constant connection to slaves (when it breaks the slave would have to
> take snapshot, or find a binlog service e.g on some other slave).
> [In such a case the master connection would still collect transaction statement till
> prepare or commit to send them to slaves at those points.]
> So here replicated transactions need identification on the binlog-less
> master to display its execution status (which would matter when
> configuration changes and a new master is reelected).
Aha, so delegate the binlogging task to a slave. I guess there needs to be a
binlog *somewhere* for GTID to make sense.
I wonder if it would be possible to avoid introducing a new table (for
example updating the mysql.gtid_slave_pos table on the master). Having two
different places (binlog and mysql.gtid_slave_pos) is already a source of
considerable complexity in the MariaDB GTID, something I would have liked
to avoid. But I felt that it is was really important to allow a slave to use
GTID without --log-slave-updates (hence the need for the table), and also
that adding a mandatory extra table operation to every transaction on the
master was unacceptable (hence the binlog).
Another fundamental design detail of MariaDB GTID is that it supports
out-of-order sequence numbers in the binlog. Again, this is a source of
considerable complexity. This was needed so that 10.0 could enable GTID by
default on the master, so that a simple CHANGE MASTER is sufficient to start
using GTID after an update. For example, an existing master-master ring that
is upgraded to 10.0 will not have gtid_domain_id set and thus will generate
out-of-order GTIDs in the binlog. The implementation is very carefully
designed to always be able to find the correct binlog position from a GTID
even in case of out-of-order sequence numbers.
A consequence is that in MariaDB, it is not in general possible to compare
GTIDs without reference to the binlog. This can also easily affect things
like extending gtid_current_pos or this idea of binlogless master. I wonder
how well understood this generally is by users and developers - and if not,
it is a good sign that it is too complicated...
My point is - maybe it would be an idea to introduce a fully-strict GTID
mode now. In fully-strict mode, GTIDs are guaranteed to be in-order (within
each domain) in every binlog in the system. Ie. there would be a marker at
the start of every binlog file (GTID_LIST perhaps) that this server is
fully-strict and any attempt to disable fully-strict (without CHANGE MASTER)
or connect a fully-strict slave would give an error.
Then in fully-strict mode sequence numbers are strictly monotonic (within a
domain), and GTIDs can be compared simply on sequence numbers. And then a
lot of more advanced GTID features can be implemented in a simpler and more
intuitive (for the user) way. For example, having GTIDs stored in multiple
places is less of a problem, since unification is trivial by just taking the
max sequencenumber within each domain.