Bug #79658 performance_schema statements by thread limited instrumentation

Description:
WHen using ROW binlog format on the master, only 'statement/sql/begin' seems to be instrumented.

slave1 [localhost] {msandbox} (performance_schema) > SELECT THREAD_ID, EVENT_NAME, COUNT_STAR,
    ->   SUM_TIMER_WAIT/1000000 AS SUM_TIMER_WAIT_MS,
    ->   (SUM_TIMER_WAIT/COUNT_STAR)/1000000 AS AVG_TIME_MS
    -> FROM events_statements_summary_by_thread_by_event_name
    -> WHERE THREAD_ID IN (
    ->     SELECT THREAD_ID FROM replication_applier_status_by_worker
    -> ) AND COUNT_STAR > 0;
    SELECT THREAD_ID FROM replication_applier_status_by_worker
) AND COUNT_STAR > 0;+-----------+---------------------+------------+-------------------+-------------+
| THREAD_ID | EVENT_NAME          | COUNT_STAR | SUM_TIMER_WAIT_MS | AVG_TIME_MS |
+-----------+---------------------+------------+-------------------+-------------+
|        84 | statement/sql/begin |         43 |          757.5610 | 17.61769767 |
|        85 | statement/sql/begin |        339 |         5828.5290 | 17.19330088 |
|        86 | statement/sql/begin |       1332 |        23372.3000 | 17.54677177 |
|        87 | statement/sql/begin |       9692 |       170775.2900 | 17.62023215 |
+-----------+---------------------+------------+-------------------+-------------+
4 rows in set (0.01 sec)

Compared with STATEMENT, this is broken down properly to more specific statement:

slave1 [localhost] {msandbox} (performance_schema) > SELECT THREAD_ID, EVENT_NAME, COUNT_STAR,
    ->   SUM_TIMER_WAIT/1000000 AS SUM_TIMER_WAIT_MS,
    ->   (SUM_TIMER_WAIT/COUNT_STAR)/1000000 AS AVG_TIME_MS
    -> FROM events_statements_summary_by_thread_by_event_name
    -> WHERE THREAD_ID IN (
    ->     SELECT THREAD_ID FROM replication_applier_status_by_worker
    -> ) AND COUNT_STAR > 0;
    SELECT THREAD_ID FROM replication_applier_status_by_worker
) AND COUNT_STAR > 
+-----------+----------------------+------------+-------------------+--------------+
| THREAD_ID | EVENT_NAME           | COUNT_STAR | SUM_TIMER_WAIT_MS | AVG_TIME_MS  |
+-----------+----------------------+------------+-------------------+--------------+
|        40 | statement/sql/update |          3 |          527.2640 | 175.75466667 |
|        40 | statement/sql/insert |          1 |          115.3970 | 115.39700000 |
|        40 | statement/sql/delete |          1 |          134.7430 | 134.74300000 |
|        40 | statement/sql/begin  |         17 |          272.2470 |  16.01452941 |
|        41 | statement/sql/update |        102 |        30968.4890 | 303.61263725 |
|        41 | statement/sql/insert |         34 |         3991.2110 | 117.38855882 |
|        41 | statement/sql/delete |         34 |         4161.8310 | 122.40679412 |
|        41 | statement/sql/begin  |        125 |         2107.1340 |  16.85707200 |
|        42 | statement/sql/update |       1809 |       627345.4180 | 346.79127584 |
|        42 | statement/sql/insert |        603 |        73814.9090 | 122.41278441 |
|        42 | statement/sql/delete |        603 |        75502.3550 | 125.21120232 |
|        42 | statement/sql/begin  |       1214 |        20815.6950 |  17.14637150 |
|        43 | statement/sql/update |      12435 |      3552280.8530 | 285.66794154 |
|        43 | statement/sql/insert |       4145 |       502627.9480 | 121.26126610 |
|        43 | statement/sql/delete |       4145 |       515232.4040 | 124.30214813 |
|        43 | statement/sql/begin  |       9334 |       157567.5740 |  16.88103428 |
+-----------+----------------------+------------+-------------------+--------------+

How to repeat:
Can repeat with standard MTS setup procedure and enabling statements instrumentaion on performance_schema.

the documentation hints at a limitation:
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/performance-schema-statement-tables.html

"The preceding description applies only for statement-based replication. For row-based replication, table I/O done on the slave as it processes row changes can be instrumented, but row events in the relay log do not appear as discrete statements."

Hi,

as Shane already wrote, this is not a bug but designed behavior

all best
Bogdan Kecman