Major replication test framework cleanup. This does the following:
- Ensure that all tests clean up the replication state when they
finish, by making check-testcase check the output of SHOW SLAVE STATUS.
This implies:
- Slave must not be running after test finished. This is good
because it removes the risk for sporadic errors in subsequent
tests when a test forgets to sync correctly.
- Slave SQL and IO errors must be cleared when test ends. This is
good because we will notice if a test gets an unexpected error in
the slave threads near the end.
- We no longer have to clean up before a test starts.
- Ensure that all tests that wait for an error in one of the slave
threads waits for a specific error. It is no longer possible to
source wait_for_slave_[sql|io]_to_stop.inc when there is an error
in one of the slave threads. This is good because:
- If a test expects an error but there is a bug that causes
another error to happen, or if it stops the slave thread without
an error, then we will notice.
- When developing tests, wait_for_*_to_[start|stop].inc will fail
immediately if there is an error in the relevant slave thread.
Before this patch, we had to wait for the timeout.
- Remove duplicated and repeated code for setting up unusual replication
topologies. Now, there is a single file that is capable of setting
up arbitrary topologies (include/rpl_init.inc, but
include/master-slave.inc is still available for the most common
topology). Tests can now end with include/rpl_end.inc, which will clean
up correctly no matter what topology is used. The topology can be
changed with include/rpl_change_topology.inc.
- Improved debug information when tests fail. This includes:
- debug info is printed on all servers configured by include/rpl_init.inc
- User can set $rpl_debug=1, which makes auxiliary replication files
print relevant debug info.
- Improved documentation for all auxiliary replication files. Now they
describe purpose, usage, parameters, and side effects.
- Many small code cleanups:
- Made have_innodb.inc output a sensible error message.
- Moved contents of rpl000017-slave.sh into rpl000017.test
- Added mysqltest variables that expose the current state of
disable_warnings/enable_warnings and friends.
- Too many to list here: see per-file comments for details.
Backporting BUG#43789 to mysql-5.1-bugteam
The replication was generating corrupted data, warning messages on Valgrind
and aborting on debug mode while replicating a "null" to "not null" field.
Specifically the unpack_row routine, was considering the slave's table
definition and trying to retrieve a field value, where there was nothing to be
retrieved, ignoring the fact that the value was defined as "null" by the master.
To fix the problem, we proceed as follows:
1 - If it is not STRICT sql_mode, implicit default values are used, regardless
if it is multi-row or single-row statement.
2 - However, if it is STRICT mode, then a we do what follows:
2.1 If it is a transactional engine, we do a rollback on the first NULL that is
to be set into a NOT NULL column and return an error.
2.2 If it is a non-transactional engine and it is the first row to be inserted
with multi-row, we also return the error. Otherwise, we proceed with the
execution, use implicit default values and print out warning messages.
Unfortunately, the current patch cannot mimic the behavior showed by the master
for updates on multi-tables and multi-row inserts. This happens because such
statements are unfolded in different row events. For instance, considering the
following updates and strict mode:
(master)
create table t1 (a int);
create table t2 (a int not null);
insert into t1 values (1);
insert into t2 values (2);
update t1, t2 SET t1.a=10, t2.a=NULL;
t1 would have (10) and t2 would have (0) as this would be handled as a
multi-row update. On the other hand, if we had the following updates:
(master)
create table t1 (a int);
create table t2 (a int);
(slave)
create table t1 (a int);
create table t2 (a int not null);
(master)
insert into t1 values (1);
insert into t2 values (2);
update t1, t2 SET t1.a=10, t2.a=NULL;
On the master t1 would have (10) and t2 would have (NULL). On
the slave, t1 would have (10) but the update on t1 would fail.
