While it might be GA I would not recommend that you deploy it for a while. ... at least several point releases. There will be new bugs uncovered as it moves out to a wider audience.
Upgrade to 5.5 (through 5.1) first as it is quite proven. Slave 5.6 off it and test. Be patient. Save yourself some heartache. Just my two cents. Keith On Feb 15, 2013 9:27 AM, "Mike Franon" <kongfra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks everyone for suggestions. > > I am doing this on a test box with a copy of our db before doing this > on production db servers. > > I just upgraded from 5.0 to 5.1, and ran mysql_upgrade > > and see I have a few tables with the following error: > > error : Table upgrade required. Please do "REPAIR TABLE > `tablename`" or dump/reload to fix it! > > I got this on 4 tables so far, but it still checking, my database is > huge so might be a while. > > The question I have what is the best way to fix this? > > To install all I did was remove all of the 5.0, and then did a yum > install 5.1 on my AWS machine. and then just started mysql. > > Should I instead do a complete mysqldump, and use that instead? > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Rick James <rja...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > > Sounds like something that, once discovered, can be fixed in the old > version > > -- then it works correctly in both. > > > > > > > > That is what happened with a 4.0->5.1 conversion years ago. With 1000 > > different tables and associated code, we encountered two > incompatibilities. > > One had to do with NULLs, the other with precedence of commajoin vs > explicit > > JOIN. > > > > > > > > From: Singer Wang [mailto:w...@singerwang.com] > > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:41 PM > > To: Rick James > > Cc: Mihail Manolov; Mike Franon; Akshay Suryavanshi; < > mysql@lists.mysql.com> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Upgrading form mysql 5.0.90 to 5.5 or 5.6 > > > > > > > > Its a very pedantic case, but we had a few instances where it was an > issue > > at my last job. It basically involved multi-table deletes and aliasing.. > I > > quote the change notes for MySQL 5.5.3 > > > > > > > > Incompatible Change: Several changes were made to alias resolution in > > multiple-table DELETE statements so that it is no longer possible to have > > inconsistent or ambiguous table aliases. > > > > § In MySQL 5.1.23, alias declarations outside the table_references part > of > > the statement were disallowed for theUSING variant of multiple-table > DELETE > > syntax, to reduce the possibility of ambiguous aliases that could lead to > > ambiguous statements that have unexpected results such as deleting rows > from > > the wrong table. > > > > Now alias declarations outside table_references are disallowed for all > > multiple-table DELETE statements. Alias declarations are permitted only > in > > the table_references part. > > > > Incorrect: > > > > > > > > DELETE FROM t1 AS a2 USING t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN t2 AS a2; > > > > DELETE t1 AS a2 FROM t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN t2 AS a2; > > > > Correct: > > > > > > > > DELETE FROM t1 USING t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN t2 AS a2; > > > > DELETE t1 FROM t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN t2 AS a2; > > > > § Previously, for alias references in the list of tables from which to > > delete rows in a multiple-table delete, the default database is used > unless > > one is specified explicitly. For example, if the default database is db1, > > the following statement does not work because the unqualified alias > > reference a2 is interpreted as having a database of db1: > > > > § > > > > § DELETE a1, a2 FROM db1.t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN db2.t2 AS a2 > > > > WHERE a1.id=a2.id; > > > > To correctly match an alias that refers to a table outside the default > > database, you must explicitly qualify the reference with the name of the > > proper database: > > > > > > > > DELETE a1, db2.a2 FROM db1.t1 AS a1 INNER JOIN db2.t2 AS a2 > > > > WHERE a1.id=a2.id; > > > > Now alias resolution does not require qualification and alias references > > should not be qualified with the database name. Qualified names are > > interpreted as referring to tables, not aliases. > > > > Statements containing alias constructs that are no longer permitted must > be > > rewritten. (Bug #27525) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Rick James <rja...@yahoo-inc.com> > wrote: > > > > Singer, do you have some examples? > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Singer Wang [mailto:w...@singerwang.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:59 PM > >> To: Mihail Manolov > >> Cc: Mike Franon; Akshay Suryavanshi; <mysql@lists.mysql.com> > >> Subject: Re: Upgrading form mysql 5.0.90 to 5.5 or 5.6 > >> > > > >> There are queries that works with 5.1/5.0 that do not work with 5.5, I > >> would test extensively.. > >> > >> S > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Mihail Manolov < > >> mihail.mano...@liquidation.com> wrote: > >> > >> > You could jump from 5.0 directly to 5.5 and skip 5.1. I have without > >> > any issues. There are some configuration file change, which you may > >> > want to consider checking. I definitely recommend upgrading your > >> > development servers for an extensive testing. Some queries _may_ run > >> > slower or not work at all and you may have to rearrange how you join > >> tables in your queries. > >> > > >> > The upgrade from 5.5 to 5.6 should me smoother, though. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Feb 14, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Mike Franon wrote: > >> > > >> > > Great thanks for the info, I guess the best way to do this is take > >> a > >> > > spare server, set it up with our standard setup, and then start the > >> > > upgrade as you said 5.0 -> 5.1 -> 5.5, test and then upgrade to 5.6 > >> > > and test. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Akshay Suryavanshi > >> > > <akshay.suryavansh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Mike, > >> > >> > >> > >> 5.6 is GA now, so its stable release. Also you should not jump to > >> > >> 5.6 directly, atleast from 5.0. > >> > >> > >> > >> There are many bug fixes and changes in 5.1, so you should > >> consider > >> > >> this way. > >> > >> > >> > >> 5.0-->5.1-->5.5 (all slaves first, and then the master) > >> > >> > >> > >> And further 5.5 --> 5.6 (again all slaves first and then the > >> > >> master) > >> > >> > >> > >> Hope this helps. > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers! > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Mike Franon > >> <kongfra...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I have 1 master with many slaves, using the master only for > >> > >>> inserts and the rest are readers. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Is 5.6 stable? Or better off to go to 5.5? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> If so do I need to make a few steps or can go straight from 5.0 > >> to 5.6? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Any best practices and recommendations? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thanks > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -- > >> > >>> MySQL General Mailing List > >> > >>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > >> > >>> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > MySQL General Mailing List > >> > > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > >> > > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > MySQL General Mailing List > >> > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > >> > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > >> > > >> > > > > > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > >
