Yes, I confirm, it's a bug.
--
For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita
This email is sponsored by Ensita.net http://www.ensita.net/
__ ___ ___ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ /Egor Egorov
/ /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/_/ /
"Logan, David (SST - Adelaide)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are trying to put a monitoring solution in place at a client and have
> come up against something during testing. If the replication user
> disappears off the master and the slave cannot log in, the
> Slave_IO_Thread still shows runni
David,
I haven't ever attempted to delete the slave user on the master, and since I
only run replication on 4.1 boxes and not 4.0 boxes, I won't be able to help
much. But I would probably submit it to http://bugs.mysql.com and they can
verify that it is a bug. But they will probably not recommend
On Tuesday 04 March 2003 22:34, Andrew Braithwaite wrote:
> This is quite an involved one...
>
> Using MySQL 4.0.11 on linux
>
> I have two logical db's on the same machine, lets say db1 and db2.
>
> I have perl apps doing the following: "replace into db2.tablename ."
>
> In my.cnf I have the
I don't think I have anything that should cause this. Here is my my.ini
from the the slave. The tables that are being excluded are not listed.
[mysqld]
basedir=C:/mysql
datadir=C:/mysql/data
set-variable=max_allowed_packet=16M
log-slave-updates
log-bin
# Replication variables
master-host=x.
Message -
> From: "Ross Davis - DataAnywhere.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Jason Brooke'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:16 AM
> Subject: RE: Replication bug?
>
t;
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: Replication bug?
> Did you ever get any confirmation that it will be added to the official
> bug list?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Brooke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 3:14 AM
&g
From: Frederick R. Doncillo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 10:58 PM
To: Ross Davis - DataAnywhere.net
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Replication bug?
Are the slaves doing the replication process? If not, you may try it
that way. Slaves should do the updating and
Did you ever get any confirmation that it will be added to the official
bug list?
-Original Message-
From: Jason Brooke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 3:14 AM
To: Ross Davis - DataAnywhere.net
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Replication bug?
Yes this is
Yes this is the same issue I've reported previously. Unless literally
'select' the database, the query is never written to the binary log.
- Original Message -
From: "Ross Davis - DataAnywhere.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 12:38 PM
Subject
Are the slaves doing the replication process? If not, you may try it
that way. Slaves should do the updating and must request from the
server and not the server to the slave. :-)
Fred.
Ross Davis - DataAnywhere.net wrote:
I think I have found a replication bug. We are using Mysql-Max 3.23.53
> The bug manifests itself in the following situation. A temporary
> table has been created on the master server. A query is executed
> using an alias for that temporary table. The connection is dropped
> without explicitly dropping that temporary table. In the binary log,
> mysql records a dr
OTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: replication bug
> I assume that you have already scanned the MySQL manual section 4.10.4
> "Replication Features and Known Problems" to see if anything listed there
as
> a problem is relevant to your situation
om: Gabe E. Nydick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: replication bug
I have found that if I do manual changes to the table, it replicates. If
the applications my company wrote make changes, they don't replicate.
;
To: "Gabe E. Nydick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: replication bug
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:17:26PM -0700, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:54:51PM -0700, Gabe E. Nydick
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gabe E. Nydick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: replication bug
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:17:26PM -0700, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:54:51PM -0
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:17:26PM -0700, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:54:51PM -0700, Gabe E. Nydick wrote:
> >
> > I have a large set of tables that are 1-way replicating to an
> > identical machine as the master db, and for some reason 1 table
> > doesn't make it into the b
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:54:51PM -0700, Gabe E. Nydick wrote:
>
> I have a large set of tables that are 1-way replicating to an
> identical machine as the master db, and for some reason 1 table
> doesn't make it into the binary log. Why would updates to 1
> specific table not make it into the b
On Tuesday 10 April 2001 10:55, Sasha Pachev wrote:
> Scott:
>
> See my comments below regarding the replication bug you have reported.
>
> error from log file:
> 010410 15:18:20 Slave: connected to master 'navrep@hsNavYkfPrd4:3306',
> replication started in log 'hsNavYkfPrd4-bin.060' at positi
On Thursday 15 February 2001 18:50, Rodolfo Sikora wrote:
>Does this problem exist in 3.23.32??
>
>
>
>>
>>Thanks for the bug report. The problem is a bug in the code that skips
events
>>when it sees a log entry with the same server id - something that can only
>>happen in the bi-directional re
Does this problem exist in 3.23.32??
>
>Thanks for the bug report. The problem is a bug in the code that skips events
>when it sees a log entry with the same server id - something that can only
>happen in the bi-directional replicaiton setup. Fix:
>
>--- 1.85/sql/slave.cc Sat Jan 27 15:33:
On Wednesday 14 February 2001 12:58, Matt Hahnfeld wrote:
>Wow, that was fast! Thanks!!
We mean what we say - the better the bug report, the quicker the fix :-)
>
>--Matt
>
>On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Sasha Pachev wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 14 February 2001 09:19, Matt Hahnfeld wrote:
>> >After do
On Wednesday 14 February 2001 09:19, Matt Hahnfeld wrote:
>After downgrading to 3.23.30, replication worked fine without the problem
>posted below. This appears to be a bug in the newest version (3.23.33)
>only.
>
>The failed tests were run under mysql-3.23.33-pc-linux-gnu-i686 (binary
>distribut
23 matches
Mail list logo
