On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:43 PM Sergei Golubchik <s...@mariadb.org> wrote:

> Hi, Aleksey!
>
> On Apr 04, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> > Hello, Sergei!
> >
> > In unversioned -> versioned scenario in the code below it first gets to
> Set
> > time 4, creates some records (on slave) and then seconds on slave
> increased
> > (X+1) while on master seconds are not yet increased (X). Then we get to
> Set
> > time 3 and reset time on slave to X.0 therefore we get back in time and
> all
> > stored records with timestamp X.n will be in future. 'n' came from
> > ++system_time.sec_part in Set time 4.
>
> That's not how it is supposed to work.
> As long as the master sends events with seconds=X,
> the slave will generate microsecons, X.0, X.1, X.2, etc.
>
> When the master sends an event with a new timestamp, Y,
> the slave goes back to Y.0, and continues with Y.1, etc.


> > Why did you decided to use such logic of getting seconds from master
> > and microseconds from slave? Since microseconds sooner or later reset
> > to 0 it's not better than just assigning some random number. What
> > sending microseconds from master conditionally only is good for?
>
> Because the master was sending microseconds conditionally, since 5.3.
> The slave had to cope with that somehow anyway.
>
>
If there is an installation from unversioned 5.3 to versioned 10.3 we can
warn user about lost microseconds. This is minor issue since such setups
are rare, I guess. But for what microseconds are sent in 5.3?


> And I didn't want to force the master to include microseconds in every
> single event for every single user just in case someone would decide to
> do unversioned->versioned replication.
>

If it's critical, this can be configured. But is it really performance
issue?


>
> Also, I thought that processing of 1000000 Query_log_event's in a second
> is not realistic.
>

Now it fails just with several events. I guess because system_time.sec_part
is not reset to 0 initially.


>
> But now I see some issues with that. One can freeze the time on the
> master with 'SET TIMESTAMP' and send an arbitrary number of events with
> the same timestamp.
>
> Or one can generate a query event that includes microseconds, to force
> the slave to count not from X.0, but from, say, X.999998.
>
> So, a wraparound is possible and we need some fix for it.
>

Looks like a lots of complications for a minor issue. Other DBMS don't use
microseconds for System Versioning at all. I guess user should cope either
with sent microseconds unconditionally (for both SBR and RBR) or he should
not use microseconds-precise System Versioning on slave.


>
> Regards,
> Sergei
> Chief Architect MariaDB
> and secur...@mariadb.org
>


-- 
All the best,

Aleksey Midenkov
@midenok
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
Post to     : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to