privileges
This problem is 4.1 specific. It doesn't affect 4.0 and was fixed
in 5.x before.
Having any mysql user who is allowed to issue multi table update
statement and any column/table grants, allows this user to update
any table on a server (mysql grant tables are not exception).
check_grant() accepts number of tables (in table list) to be checked
in 5-th param. While checking grants for multi table update, number
of tables must be 1. It must never be 0 (actually we have
DBUG_ASSERT(number > 0) in 5.x in grant_check() function).
Before this fix,
- a runtime error in a statement in a stored procedure with no error handlers
was properly detected (as expected)
- a runtime error in a statement with an error handler inherited from a non
local runtime context (i.e., proc a with a handler, calling proc b) was
properly detected (as expected)
- a runtime error in a statement with a *local* error handler was executed
as follows :
a) the statement would succeed, regardless of the error condition, (bug)
b) the error handler would be called (as expected).
The root cause is that functions like my_messqge_sql would "forget" to set
the thread flag thd->net.report_error to 1, because of the check involving
sp_rcontext::found_handler_here().
Failure to set this flag would cause, later in the call stack,
in Item_func::fix_fields() at line 190, the code to return FALSE and consider
that executing the statement was successful.
With this fix :
- error handling code, that was duplicated in different places in the code,
is now implemented in sp_rcontext::handle_error(),
- handle_error() correctly sets thd->net.report_error when a handler is
present, regardless of the handler location (local, or in the call stack).
A test case, bug8153_subselect, has been written to demonstrate the change
of behavior before and after the fix.
Another test case, bug8153_function_a, as also been writen.
This test has the same behavior before and after the fix.
This test has been written to demonstrate that the previous expected
result of procedure bug18787, was incorrect, since select no_such_function()
should fail and therefore not produce a result.
The incorrect result for bug18787 has the same root cause as Bug#8153,
and the expected result has been adjusted.
columns
Fixed confusing warning.
Quoting INSERT section of the manual:
----
Inserting NULL into a column that has been declared NOT NULL. For
multiple-row INSERT statements or INSERT INTO ... SELECT statements, the
column is set to the implicit default value for the column data type. This
is 0 for numeric types, the empty string ('') for string types, and the
"zero" value for date and time types. INSERT INTO ... SELECT statements are
handled the same way as multiple-row inserts because the server does not
examine the result set from the SELECT to see whether it returns a single
row. (For a single-row INSERT, no warning occurs when NULL is inserted into
a NOT NULL column. Instead, the statement fails with an error.)
----
This is also true for LOAD DATA INFILE. For INSERT user can specify
DEFAULT keyword as a value to set column default. There is no similiar
feature available for LOAD DATA INFILE.
The problem was that the grammar allows to create a function with an optional
definer clause, and define it as a UDF with the SONAME keyword.
Such combination should be reported as an error.
The solution is to not change the grammar itself, and to introduce a
specific check in the yacc actions in 'create_function_tail' for UDF,
that now reports ER_WRONG_USAGE when using both DEFINER and SONAME.
When executing ALTER TABLE all the attributes of the view were overwritten.
This is contrary to the user's expectations.
So some of the view attributes are preserved now : namely security and
algorithm. This means that if they are not specified in ALTER VIEW
their values are preserved from CREATE VIEW instead of being defaulted.
