So, you keep insisting that it's important to have information about server_id of all servers that ever were a master for the database even with gtid_strict_mode = 1. :( I don't agree with that, because I believe this information can be useful only in circular replication or something similar. But okay, I understand your point...
Pavel On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Kristian Nielsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Pavel Ivanov <[email protected]> writes: > >> 3. Set gtid_binlog_state and gtid_slave_pos to '0-3-10' on S1 and to >> '0-1-1' on S2. Try to start slave on S2. Now I get error "slave has >> diverged". What gives? It's not diverged, it's just behind. > > Yes, it is diverged. > > S1 has binlog state '0-3-10'. This means that the only GTIDs it ever contained > were 0-3-1, 0-3-2, 0-3-3, ..., 0-3-10. > > But S2 has applied GTID 0-1-1, which never existed on S1, nor can it in the > future without violating strict mode. > > If S2 had been behind S1, then S1 must have had 0-1-1 in its binlog at some > point, so the binlog state would have been '0-1-5,0-3-10' or something like > that. With such a binlog state, the error message would have been "slave too > old". > >> 4. Now execute a couple transactions on S1, its gtid_current_pos is >> 0-1-12 now. Start slave on S2 (remember -- its gtid_current_pos is >> 0-1-1). And now I see even more confusing "The binlog on the master is >> missing the GTID 0-1-1 requested by the slave (even though both a >> prior and a subsequent sequence number does exist)". I'm sorry, which >> prior sequence number exists? > > Ok, that is a bit unfortunate wording. > > The point is - there is a hole in the binlog of S1 at the point of GTID > 0-1-1. Because GTID 0-1-11 and 0-1-12 exists, but GTIDs 0-1-1, 0-1-2, ..., > 0-1-10 do not exist in the binlog of S1 (and they never existed, according to > binlog state). > > Let me change the error message text to: > > "The binlog on the master is missing the GTID %u-%u-%llu requested by the > slave (even though a subsequent sequence number does exist), and GTID > strict mode is enabled" > > to avoid the confusion in the case where like here, the hole is at the very > start of the sequence numbers. > > Again, if the intension was that GTID 0-1-1 did exist in the binlog history, > but was removed in purge or restore or whatever, the binlog state should have > been '0-1-X,0-3-10'. Then the error message would have been 'slave too old'. > > - Kristian. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
