On 07/13/2011 07:38 AM, Timour Katchaounov wrote: > Igor, > > Could you please review my patch for bug LP:809245. > > Ttimour
Timour, It's ok to push this patch Regards, Igor. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Return-Path: <[email protected]> > X-Original-To: [email protected] > Delivered-To: [email protected] > Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > hasky.askmonty.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1014BE104C; Wed, 13 Jul > 2011 17:09:26 +0300 (EEST) > X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.askmonty.org > Received: from hasky.askmonty.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost > (mail.askmonty.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP > id 2zpPCMRHKtn9; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:09:26 +0300 (EEST) > Received: from hasky.askmonty.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) > by hasky.askmonty.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC862E1049; Wed, 13 Jul > 2011 17:09:26 +0300 (EEST) > Received: by hasky.askmonty.org (Postfix) id 756A7E1049; Wed, 13 Jul > 2011 17:09:25 +0300 (EEST) > Delivered-To: [email protected] > Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by > hasky.askmonty.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641B3E104A for > <[email protected]>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:09:25 +0300 (EEST) > X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.askmonty.org > Received: from hasky.askmonty.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost > (mail.askmonty.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP > id PF4tvWx7nmEU for <[email protected]>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:09:19 > +0300 (EEST) > Received: from localhost6.localdomain6 (unknown [91.148.138.177]) > (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No > client certificate requested) by hasky.askmonty.org (Postfix) with > ESMTPSA id DCEAEE1049 for <[email protected]>; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 > 17:09:18 +0300 (EEST) > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="===============3088248604612826632==" > MIME-Version: 1.0 > From: <[email protected]> > User-Agent: bzr/2.3.1 > To: <[email protected]> > Message-Id: <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:09:18 +0300 (EEST) > Subject: [Commits] Rev 3092: Fixed bug lp:809245 in > file:///home/tsk/mprog/src/5.3-mwl89/ > X-BeenThere: [email protected] > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 > Precedence: list > Reply-To: [email protected] > List-Id: MariaDB Commits List <commits.mariadb.org> > List-Unsubscribe: > <https://lists.askmonty.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/commits>, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > List-Archive: <http://lists.askmonty.org/pipermail/commits> > List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> > List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help> > List-Subscribe: > <https://lists.askmonty.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/commits>, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe> > Sender: [email protected] > Errors-To: [email protected] > > At file:///home/tsk/mprog/src/5.3-mwl89/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > revno: 3092 > revision-id: [email protected] > parent: [email protected] > fixes bug(s): https://launchpad.net/bugs/809245 > committer: [email protected] > branch nick: 5.3-mwl89 > timestamp: Wed 2011-07-13 17:09:09 +0300 > message: > Fixed bug lp:809245 > > In addition to the bug fix explained below, the patch performs > few renames, and adds some comments to avoid similar problems. > > Analysis: > The failed assert was due to a bug in MWL#68, where it was > incorrectly assumed that the size of the bitmap > subselect_rowid_merge_engine::null_only_columns should be > the same as the size of the array of Ordered_keys. > > The bitmap null_only_columns contains bits to mark columns > that contain only NULLs. Therefore the indexes of the bits > to be set in null_only_columns are different from the indexes > of the Ordered_keys. If there is a NULL-only column that appears > in a table after the last partial match column with Ordered_key, > this NULL-only column would require setting a bit with index > bigger than the size of the bitmap null_only_columns. > > Accessing such a bit caused the failed assert. > > Solution: > Upon analysis, it turns out that null_only_columns is not needed > at all, because we are looking for partial matches, and having > such columns guarantees that there is a partial match for any > corresponding outer value. > > Therefore the patch removes > subselect_rowid_merge_engine::null_only_columns. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
