| Bug #40007 | Replication failure with RBR + no PK + 2 indexed fields | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Submitted: | 13 Oct 2008 17:22 | Modified: | 21 Mar 16:33 |
| Reporter: | Philip Stoev | ||
| Status: | Duplicate | ||
| Category: | Server: RBR | Severity: | S2 (Serious) |
| Version: | 6.0-rbr | OS: | Any |
| Assigned to: | Luís Soares | Target Version: | 6.0-beta |
| Triage: | Triaged: D2 (Serious) | ||
[13 Oct 2008 17:55]
Miguel Solorzano
Sveta, Same as 40001/04 bugs. Thanks.
[13 Oct 2008 22:56]
Sveta Smirnova
Thank you for the report. Verified as described.
[20 Oct 2008 14:10]
Bugs System
A patch for this bug has been committed. After review, it may be pushed to the relevant source trees for release in the next version. You can access the patch from: http://lists.mysql.com/commits/56576 2771 Mats Kindahl 2008-10-15 Bug #40007: Replication failure with RBR + no PK + 2 indexed fields Unable to reproduce failure, but adding test case according to report to avoid regressions.
[22 Oct 2008 18:23]
Sveta Smirnova
Confirmed INT field is affected as well. Repeatable only with 6.0
[21 Mar 16:33]
Luís Soares
I used the following for reproducing the bug behavior as described in the bug report. (I
used two integer fields).
--source include/master-slave.inc
--source include/have_binlog_format_row.inc
CREATE TABLE table1_myisam ( `int_key1` int, `int_key` int, key (`int_key1` ), key
(`int_key` ));
INSERT IGNORE INTO table1_myisam VALUES ('1', '2');
UPDATE `table1_myisam` SET `int_key1` = 0 WHERE `int_key1` = 1;
sync_slave_with_master;
Using gdb and stepping into the Rows_log_event::find_row method I found the following:
[After unpack_current_row]
(gdb) call bitmap_is_set(&m_cols, 0)
$1 = 1
(gdb) call bitmap_is_set(&m_cols, 1)
$2 = 0
(gdb) call table->field[0]->ptr
$3 = (uchar *) 0x9aca3a1 "\001"
(gdb) call table->field[1]->ptr
$4 = (uchar *) 0x9aca3a5 ""
Remark: Note how the second field (table->field[1]->ptr), from the replicated row, is set
to "".
Stepping further, I found that the record fetched from the storage engine is:
[Before record_compare]
(gdb) call table->field[0]->ptr
$5 = (uchar *) 0x9aca3a1 "\001"
(gdb) call table->field[1]->ptr
$6 = (uchar *) 0x9aca3a5 "\002"
Remark: Note how the second field from the row fetched from the slave SE is filled with a
value.
Consequently the comparison of these two records will fail because the row fetched has
more data than the unpacked row.
[return value from record_compare]
>>> result= cmp_record(table,record[1]);
(gdb) p result
$1 = true
Finally, the proposed patch for BUG#40045 seems to fix this.
[21 Mar 16:35]
Luís Soares
Facing the above analysis this bug seems to be a DUPLICATE of BUG#40045. Closing as duplicate.
Description: When executing an UPDATE against a table that contains several indexed fields, row-based replication will break: 081013 18:19:22 [ERROR] Slave SQL: Could not execute Update_rows event on table test.table1_myisam; Can't find record in 'table1_myisam', Error_code: 1032; handler error HA_ERR_END_OF_FILE; the event's master log master-bin.000001, end_log_pos 663, Error_code: 1032 081013 18:19:22 [ERROR] Slave: Can't find record in 'table1_myisam' Error_code: 1032 081013 18:19:22 [ERROR] Error running query, slave SQL thread aborted. Fix the problem, and restart the slave SQL thread with "SLAVE START". We stopped at log 'master-bin.000001' position 506 The example below uses a bit field and an int field, however the same issue has been observed with two integer fields. All storage engines appear to be affected. How to repeat: --source include/master-slave.inc SET binlog_format = 'row'; CREATE TABLE table1_myisam ( `bit_key` bit, `int_key` int, key (`bit_key` ), key (`int_key` ) ); INSERT IGNORE INTO table1_myisam VALUES ('1', '-2146992385'); UPDATE `table1_myisam` SET `bit_key` = 0 WHERE `bit_key` = 1; --save_master_pos --connection slave --sync_with_master