1. 07 Aug, 2012 1 commit
    • Praveenkumar Hulakund's avatar
      Bug#13058122 - DML, LOCK/UNLOCK TABLES AND SELECT LEAD TO · da244123
      Praveenkumar Hulakund authored
      FOREVER MDL LOCK
      
      Analysis:
      ----------
      While granting MDL lock for the lock requests in wait queue,
      first the lock is granted to the high priority lock types
      and then to the low priority lock types.
      
      MDL Priority Matrix,
        +-------------+----+---+---+---+----+-----+
        | Locks       |    |   |   |   |    |     |
        | has Priority|    |   |   |   |    |     |
        | over --->   |  S | SR| SW| SU| SNW| SNRW|   
        +-------------+----+---+---+---+----+-----+
        | X           |  + | + | + | + | +  | +   |
        +-------------|----|---|---|---|----|-----|
        | SNRW        |  - | + | + | - | -  | -   |
        +-------------|----|---|---|---|----|-----|
        | SNW         |  - | - | + | - | -  | -   |
        +-------------+----+---+---+---+----+-----+
      
      Here '+' means, Lock priority is higher.
           '-' means, Has same priority
      
      In the scenario where,
         *. Lock wait queue has requests of type S/SR/SW/SU.
         *. And locks of high priority X/SNRW/SNW are requested 
            continuously.
      
      In this case, while granting lock, always first high priority 
      lock requests(X/SNRW/SNW) are considered. Low priority 
      locks(S/SR/SW/SU) will not get chance and they will 
      wait forever.
      
      In the scenario for which this bug is reported, application
      executed many LOCK TABLES ... WRITE statements concurrently.
      These statements request SNRW lock. Also there were some
      connections trying to execute DML statements requesting SR
      lock. Since SNRW lock request has higher priority (and as
      they were too many waiting SNRW requests) lock is always 
      granted to it. So, lock request SR will wait forever, resulting
      in DML starvation.
      
      How is this handled in 5.1?
      ---------------------------
      Even in 5.1 we have low priority lock starvation issue.
      But, in 5.1 thread locking, system variable 
      "max_write_lock_count" can be configured to grant
      some pending read lock requests. After 
      "max_write_lock_count" of write lock grants all the low
      priority locks are granted.
      
      Why this issue is seen in 5.5/trunk?
      ---------------------------------
      In 5.5/trunk MDL locking, "max_write_lock_count" system 
      variable exists but not used in MDL, only thread lock uses
      it. So no effect of "max_write_lock_count" in MDL locking.
      This means that starvation of metadata locks is possible 
      even if max_write_lock_count is used.
      
      Looks like, customer was using "max_write_lock_count" in
      5.1 and when upgraded to 5.5, starvation is seen because
      of not having effect of "max_write_lock_count" in MDL.
      
      Fix:
      ----------
      As a fix, support for max_write_lock_count is added to MDL.
      To maintain write lock counter per MDL_lock object, new
      member "m_hog_lock_count" is added in MDL_lock.
      
      And following logic is added to increment the counter in 
      function reschedule_waiters, 
      (reschedule_waiters function is called while thread is
       releasing the lock)
          - After granting lock request from the wait queue.
          -  Check if there are any S/SR/SU/SW exists in the wait queue
            - If yes then increment the "m_hog_lock_count"
      
      And following logic is added in the same function to
      handle pending S/SU/SR/SW locks
          
          - Before granting locks 
          - Check if max_write_lock_count <= m_hog_lock_count
          - If Yes, then try to grant S/SR/SW/SU locks. 
            (Since all of these has same priority, all locks are
             granted together. But some lock grant may fail because
             of grant incompatibility)
          - Reset m_hog_lock_count if there no low priority lock
            requests in wait queue. 
          - return
      
      Note:
      --------------------------
      In the lock priority matrix explained above,
      though X has priority over the SNW and SNRW. X locks is
      taken mostly for RENAME, TRUNCATE, CREATE ... operations.
      So lock type X may not be requested in loop continuously 
      in real world applications, as compared to other lock 
      request types. So, lock request of type SNW and SNRW are 
      not starved. So, we can grant all S/SR/SU/SW in one shot,
      without considering SNW & SNRW lock request starvation.
      
      ALTER table operations take SU lock first and then 
      upgrade to SNW if required. All S, SR, SW, SU have same
      lock priority. So while granting SU, request of types
      SR, SW, S are also granted in one shot. So, lock request 
      of type SU->SNW in loop will not make other low priority 
      lock request to starve.
      
      But, when there is request for lock of type SNRW, lock
      requests of lower priority types are not granted. And if 
      SNRW is requested in loop continuously then all 
      S, SR, SW, SU are starved.
      
      This patch addresses the latter scenario.
      When we have S/SR/SW/SU in wait queue and if 
      there are
          - Continuous SNRW lock requests
          - OR one or more X and Continuous SNRW lock requests.
          - OR one SNW and Continuous SNRW lock requests.
          - OR one SNW, one or more X and continuous SNRW lock 
            requests.
      in wait queue then, S/SR/SW/SU lock request are starved.
      da244123
  2. 06 Aug, 2012 1 commit
  3. 05 Aug, 2012 1 commit
  4. 02 Aug, 2012 1 commit
  5. 31 Jul, 2012 2 commits
  6. 27 Jul, 2012 4 commits
  7. 26 Jul, 2012 10 commits
    • Praveenkumar Hulakund's avatar
      Merge from 5.1 to 5.5 · 3785ca65
      Praveenkumar Hulakund authored
      3785ca65
    • Praveenkumar Hulakund's avatar
      BUG#13868860 - LIMIT '5' IS EXECUTED WITHOUT ERROR WHEN '5' · bb64579d
      Praveenkumar Hulakund authored
                     IS PLACE HOLDER AND USE SERVER-SIDE 
      
      Analysis:
      LIMIT always takes nonnegative integer constant values. 
      
      http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/select.html
      
      So parsing of value '5' for LIMIT in SELECT fails.
      
      But, within prepared statement, LIMIT parameters can be
      specified using '?' markers. Value for the parameter can
      be supplied while executing the prepared statement.
      
      Passing string values, float or double value for LIMIT
      works well from CLI. Because, while setting the value
      for the parameters from the variable list (added using
      SET), if the value is for parameter LIMIT then its 
      converted to integer value. 
      
      But, when prepared statement is executed from the other
      interfaces as J connectors, or C applications etc.
      The value for the parameters are sent to the server
      with execute command. Each item in log has value and
      the data TYPE. So, While setting parameter value
      from this log, value is set to all the parameters
      with the same data type as passed.
      But here logic to convert value to integer type
      if its for LIMIT parameter is missing.
      Because of this,string '5' is set to LIMIT.
      And the same is logged into the binlog file too. 
      
      Fix:
      When executing prepared statement having parameter for
      CLI it worked fine, as the value set for the parameter
      is converted to integer. And this failed in other 
      interfaces as J connector,C Applications etc as this 
      conversion is missing.
      
      So, as a fix added check while setting value for the
      parameters. If the parameter is for LIMIT value then
      its converted to integer value.
      bb64579d
    • Venkata Sidagam's avatar
      Bug #12876932 - INCORRECT SELECT RESULT ON FEDERATED TABLE · 2e1f259f
      Venkata Sidagam authored
                        
      Merged pb2 test failure fix from mysql-5.1 to mysql-5.5
      2e1f259f
    • Venkata Sidagam's avatar
      Bug #12876932 - INCORRECT SELECT RESULT ON FEDERATED TABLE · c6c8645a
      Venkata Sidagam authored
      Fix for pb2 test failure.
      c6c8645a
    • Nirbhay Choubey's avatar
      0f532388
    • Nirbhay Choubey's avatar
      Bug#13741677 MYSQL_SECURE_INSTALLATION DOES NOT · b89363de
      Nirbhay Choubey authored
                   WORK + SAVES ROOT PASSWORD TO DISK!
      
      The secure installation scripts connect to the
      server by storing the password in a temporary
      option file. Now, if the script gets killed or
      fails for some reason, the removal of the option
      file may not take place.
      
      This patch introduces following enhancements :
      * (.sh) Made sure that cleanup happens at every
        call to 'exit 1'. This is performed implicitly
        by END{} in pl.in.
      * (.pl.in) Added a warning in case unlink fails
        to delete the option/query files.
      * (.sh/.pl.in) Added more signals to the signal
        handler list. SIG# 1, 3, 6, 15
      b89363de
    • Tor Didriksen's avatar
      merge 5.1 => 5.5 · da4f2a26
      Tor Didriksen authored
      da4f2a26
    • Tor Didriksen's avatar
    • Venkata Sidagam's avatar
      Bug #12876932 - INCORRECT SELECT RESULT ON FEDERATED TABLE · b8241479
      Venkata Sidagam authored
            
      Merged from mysql-5.1 to mysql-5.5
      b8241479
    • Venkata Sidagam's avatar
      Bug #12876932 - INCORRECT SELECT RESULT ON FEDERATED TABLE · 3b954d1d
      Venkata Sidagam authored
      Problem description:
      Table 't' created with two colums having compound index on both the 
      columns under innodb/myisam engine at remote machine. In the local 
      machine same table is created undet the federated engine.
      A select having where clause with along 'AND' operation gives wrong 
      results on local machine.
      
      Analysis: 
      The given query at federated engine is wrongly transformed by 
      federated::create_where_from_key() function and the same was sent to 
      the remote machine. Hence the local machine is showing wrong results.
      
      Given query "select c1 from t where c1 <= 2 and c2 = 1;"
      Query transformed, after ha_federated::create_where_from_key() function is:
      SELECT `c1`, `c2` FROM `t` WHERE  (`c1` IS NOT NULL ) AND 
      ( (`c1` >= 2)  AND  (`c2` <= 1) ) and the same sent to real_query().
      In the above the '<=' and '=' conditions were transformed to '>=' and 
      '<=' respectively.
      
      ha_federated::create_where_from_key() function behaving as below:
      The key_range is having both the start_key and end_key. The start_key 
      is used to get "(`c1` IS NOT NULL )" part of the where clause, this 
      transformation is correct. The end_key is used to get "( (`c1` >= 2) 
      AND  (`c2` <= 1) )", which is wrong, here the given conditions('<=' and '=') 
      are changed as wrong conditions('>=' and '<=').
      The end_key is having {key = 0x39fa6d0 "", length = 10, keypart_map = 3, 
      flag = HA_READ_AFTER_KEY}
      
      The store_length is having value '5'. Based on store_length and length 
      values the condition values is applied in HA_READ_AFTER_KEY switch case.
      The switch case 'HA_READ_AFTER_KEY' is applicable to only the last part of 
      the end_key and for previous parts it is going to 'HA_READ_KEY_OR_NEXT' case, 
      here the '>=' is getting added as a condition instead of '<='.
      
      Fix:
      Updated the 'if' condition in 'HA_READ_AFTER_KEY' case to affect for all 
      parts of the end_key. i.e 'i > 0' will used for end_key, Hence added it in 
      the if condition.
      3b954d1d
  8. 25 Jul, 2012 5 commits
  9. 24 Jul, 2012 5 commits
    • Harin Vadodaria's avatar
      Bug#13904906: YASSL PRE-AUTH CRASH WITH 5.1.62, 5.5.22 · d259fae7
      Harin Vadodaria authored
      Problem: Valgrind reports errors when an invalid certificate is used on the
               client.
      
      Solution: Updated yaSSL to version 2.2.2.
      d259fae7
    • Sujatha Sivakumar's avatar
      Bug#13961678:MULTI-STATEMENT TRANSACTION REQUIRED MORE THAN · f9e6613b
      Sujatha Sivakumar authored
      'MAX_BINLOG_CACHE_SIZE' ERROR
            
      Problem:
      =======
      MySQL returns following error in win64.
      "ERROR 1197 (HY000): Multi-statement transaction required more than
      'max_binlog_cache_size' bytes of storage; increase this mysqld variable
      and try again" when user tries to load >4G file even if
      max_binlog_cache_size set to maximum value. On Linux everything
      works fine.
            
      Analysis:
      ========
      The `max_binlog_cache_size' variable is of type `ulonglong'.  This
      value is set to `ULONGLONG_MAX' at the time of server start up. The
      above value is stored in an intermediate variable named
      `saved_max_binlog_cache_size' which is of type `ulong'. In visual
      c++ complier the `ulong' type is of 4bytes in size and hence the value
      is getting truncated to '4GB' and the cache is not able to grow beyond
      4GB size. The same limitation is observed with 
      "max_binlog_stmt_cache_size" as well. Similar fix has been applied.
            
      Fix:
      ===
      As part of fix the type "ulong" is replaced with "my_off_t" which is of
      type "ulonglong". 
      f9e6613b
    • Joerg Bruehe's avatar
      Fix bug#14318456 SPEC FILE DOES NOT RUN THE TEST SUITE DURING RPM BUILD · 02565667
      Joerg Bruehe authored
      Add a macro "runselftest" to the spec file for RPM builds.
      
      If its value is 1 (the default), the test suite will be run during
      the RPM build.
      To prevent that, add this to the rpmbuild command line:
          --define "runselftest 0"
      Failures of the test suite will NOT make the RPM build fail!
      02565667
    • Alexander Barkov's avatar
      Merging from 5.1 · 4541988b
      Alexander Barkov authored
      4541988b
    • Alexander Barkov's avatar
      Fixing wrong copyright. Index.xml was modified in 2005, · 882e9381
      Alexander Barkov authored
      while the copyright notice still mentioned 2003.
      882e9381
  10. 23 Jul, 2012 1 commit
    • Ashish Agarwal's avatar
      BUG#13555854: CHECK AND REPAIR TABLE SHOULD BE MORE ROBUST [1] · 01f0aadd
      Ashish Agarwal authored
      ISSUE: Incorrect key file. Key file is corrupted,
             Reading incorrect key information (keyseg)
             from index file. Key definition in .MYI
             and .FRM file differs. Starting pointer
             to read the keyseg information is changed
             to a value greater than the pack_reclength.
             Memcpy tries to read keyseg information from
             unallocated memory which causes the crash.
      
      SOLUTION: One more check added to compare the
                the key definition in .MYI and .FRM
                file. If the definition differ, server
                produces an error.
      01f0aadd
  11. 19 Jul, 2012 8 commits
  12. 18 Jul, 2012 1 commit