| Bug #119772 | [8.0.45-debug] Lost connection to MySQL server during query | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Submitted: | 25 Jan 11:30 | Modified: | 25 Jan 21:06 |
| Reporter: | Chunling Qin | Email Updates: | |
| Status: | Duplicate | Impact on me: | |
| Category: | MySQL Server: DML | Severity: | S2 (Serious) |
| Version: | 8.0.45 | OS: | CentOS |
| Assigned to: | CPU Architecture: | Any | |
[25 Jan 11:30]
Chunling Qin
[25 Jan 13:47]
Daniël van Eeden
Ran this through c++filt to make it readable: #8 0x55680b370e4f Item_func_min_max::int_op() at /data/mysql-server/sql/item_func.cc:3937 #9 0x55680b363b4d Item_func_numhybrid::val_int() at /data/mysql-server/sql/item_func.cc:1731 #10 0x55680b3714cc Item_func_min_max::val_int() at /data/mysql-server/sql/item_func.cc:3983 #11 0x55680b2d213d Arg_comparator::compare_int_signed_unsigned() at /data/mysql-server/sql/item_cmpfunc.cc:1927 #12 0x55680b2f7c7f Arg_comparator::compare() at /data/mysql-server/sql/item_cmpfunc.h:211 #13 0x55680b2d6f3f Item_func_ne::val_int() at /data/mysql-server/sql/item_cmpfunc.cc:2502 #14 0x55680b2848d5 Item::val_bool() at /data/mysql-server/sql/item.cc:219 #15 0x55680b35be82 eval_const_cond(THD*, Item*, bool*) at /data/mysql-server/sql/item_func.cc:309 #16 0x55680ac1db26 remove_eq_conds(THD*, Item*, Item**, Item::cond_result*) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_optimizer.cc:10582 #17 0x55680ac1d7c8 remove_eq_conds(THD*, Item*, Item**, Item::cond_result*) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_optimizer.cc:10508 #18 0x55680ac15943 optimize_cond(THD*, Item**, COND_EQUAL**, mem_root_deque<Table_ref*>*, Item::cond_result*) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_optimizer.cc:10449 #19 0x55680ac114b8 JOIN::optimize(bool) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_optimizer.cc:473 #20 0x55680ad3a8f4 Query_block::optimize(THD*, bool) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_select.cc:2001 #21 0x55680ae3b22a Query_expression::optimize(THD*, TABLE*, bool, bool) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_union.cc:1019 #22 0x55680ad374df Sql_cmd_dml::execute_inner(THD*) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_select.cc:999 #23 0x55680ad36207 Sql_cmd_dml::execute(THD*) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_select.cc:785 #24 0x55680ac72a25 mysql_execute_command(THD*, bool) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_parse.cc:4724 #25 0x55680ac660ea dispatch_sql_command(THD*, Parser_state*) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_parse.cc:5385 #26 0x55680ac60d05 dispatch_command(THD*, COM_DATA const*, enum_server_command) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_parse.cc:2055 #27 0x55680ac6415e do_command(THD*) at /data/mysql-server/sql/sql_parse.cc:1440 #28 0x55680af7b7f1 handle_connection(void*) at /data/mysql-server/sql/conn_handler/connection_handler_per_thread.cc:303 #29 0x55680deb4eb9 pfs_spawn_thread(void*) at /data/mysql-server/storage/perfschema/pfs.cc:3050 #30 0x7f51a7a75276 <unknown> #31 0x7f51a7afc83b <unknown> #32 0xffffffffffffffff <unknown>
[25 Jan 21:06]
Roy Lyseng
Thank you for the bug report. However, this looks like a duplicate of bug#119639.
[26 Jan 11:47]
Daniël van Eeden
> However, this looks like a duplicate of bug#119639. So bug#119772 is a duplicate of bug#119639 ? And bug#119639 itself is a duplicate of bug#119606 ? And bug#119606 is also a duplicate? But without info about what bug it duplicates? Bug #119772 (Status: Duplicate) | duplicates | V Bug #119639 (Status: Duplicate) | duplicates | V Bug #119606 (Status: Duplicate) | duplicates | V Unknown Bug?
[26 Jan 13:22]
Jean-François Gagné
> > However, this looks like a duplicate of bug#119639. > > Bug #119639 (Status: Duplicate) > | > duplicates > | > V > Bug #119606 (Status: Duplicate) I agree with Daninël, instead of flagging this bug as a duplicate of bug#119639, it should have been flagged as a duplicate of Bug #119606. > Bug #119606 (Status: Duplicate) > | > duplicates > | > V > Unknown Bug? Right, it is easy to miss in Bug#119606, I copied below. > [16 Jan 12:43] Knut Anders Hatlen > > Posted by developer: > > Closing as duplicate of Bug#37083848 (virtual longlong Item_func_min_max::int_op(): [...]) which was fixed in MySQL 9.2.0. It is weird to point a public bug as a duplicate of a private fixed bug, hopefully a better way will be found to handle such case. As I posted in Bug#119639 and Bug#37083848, even though this was fixed in 9.2, 8.4.8 and in 8.0.45 are still affected.
[26 Jan 13:23]
Jean-François Gagné
> As I posted in Bug#119639 and Bug#37083848 Sorry, above should have been "As I posted in Bug#119639 and Bug#119606".
