Bug #93023 | Simplify writeset configuration and documentation | ||
---|---|---|---|
Submitted: | 31 Oct 2018 9:56 | Modified: | 19 Dec 2018 13:41 |
Reporter: | Simon Mudd (OCA) | Email Updates: | |
Status: | No Feedback | Impact on me: | |
Category: | MySQL Server: Replication | Severity: | S4 (Feature request) |
Version: | 8.0.13 | OS: | Any |
Assigned to: | CPU Architecture: | Any | |
Tags: | configuration, replication, simplify, writeset |
[31 Oct 2018 9:56]
Simon Mudd
[9 Nov 2018 12:34]
MySQL Verification Team
Hello Simon, Thank you for the feature request! regards, Umesh
[9 Nov 2018 17:16]
Sven Sandberg
Posted by developer: Thank you for the bug report, Simon! Regarding "There's no explicit reference here that if any value other than COMMIT_ORDER that you MUST set transaction_write_set_extraction." Actually it says: "The value of this variable cannot be set to anything other than COMMIT_ORDER if transaction_write_set_extraction is OFF." So I think this is indeed documented. Both binlog_transaction_dependency_tracking and transaction_write_set_extraction are *master* options. transaction_write_set_extraction=XXHASH64 tells the master server to compute writesets, and binlog_transaction_dependency_tracking tells the server to use this information when computing logical timestamps (writesets may additionally be used by group replication, hence the different options). None of these settings is needed on slaves. On slave, you only need to enable slave_parallel_type=LOGICAL_CLOCK and slave_parallel_workers=<NUMBER>. So, I think the current documentation is correct, but I do see that it would be useful to have one place that lists options to set on each server in order to enable writeset parallelization. Hence, I'm marking this as a documentation bug. Regarding your other request, to make one option implicitly set another, would you mind filing a separate bug for that, to keep server and doc issues separate? Thanks for your time.
[20 Dec 2018 1:00]
Bugs System
No feedback was provided for this bug for over a month, so it is being suspended automatically. If you are able to provide the information that was originally requested, please do so and change the status of the bug back to "Open".