Percona Server moved to https://jira.percona.com/projects/PS

Merge lp://staging/~laurynas-biveinis/percona-server/BT-16274-bug1111226-5.5 into lp://staging/percona-server/5.5

  1. BT-16274-bug1111226-5.5
  2. Merge into 5.5
Proposed by Laurynas Biveinis
Status: Merged
Approved by: Stewart Smith
Approved revision: no longer in the source branch.
Merged at revision: 433
Proposed branch: lp://staging/~laurynas-biveinis/percona-server/BT-16274-bug1111226-5.5
Merge into: lp://staging/percona-server/5.5
Diff against target: 170 lines (+106/-15)
4 files modified
Percona-Server/mysql-test/suite/innodb/r/percona_changed_page_bmp_debug.result (+24/-0)
Percona-Server/mysql-test/suite/innodb/t/percona_changed_page_bmp_debug-master.opt (+1/-0)
Percona-Server/mysql-test/suite/innodb/t/percona_changed_page_bmp_debug.test (+57/-0)
Percona-Server/storage/innobase/log/log0online.c (+24/-15)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://staging/~laurynas-biveinis/percona-server/BT-16274-bug1111226-5.5
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Stewart Smith (community) Approve
George Ormond Lorch III (community) g2 Approve
Laurynas Biveinis Pending
Review via email: mp+147067@code.staging.launchpad.net

This proposal supersedes a proposal from 2013-01-31.

Description of the change

http://jenkins.percona.com/job/percona-server-5.5-param/660/
Merge bug 1111226 fix from 5.1.
No BT or ST, but 16274 QA

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
George Ormond Lorch III (gl-az) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

percona_changed_page_bmp_debug.test is slightly different from 5.5 MP in the way the server restarts are structured and order of:
RESET CHANGED_PAGE_BITMAPS;
CREATE TABLE t1 (x INT) ENGINE=InnoDB;

Is this intentional?

review: Needs Information (g2)
Revision history for this message
Laurynas Biveinis (laurynas-biveinis) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

Yes, the change was intentional, although I am not sure if the intention is that smart nor that I can explain the need for it adequately without re-doing all the testcase debugging again.

5.5 has larger logs and apparently its test runner is more aggressive in reusing the old datadirs. Without the extra care of removing the old bitmaps at the start the injected error triggers prematurely.

Revision history for this message
George Ormond Lorch III (gl-az) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

So then why not use the same test for both just to keep things relatively in sync code wise? As far as I can see the only down side would be that the 5.1 test would execute slightly slower than it would need to be because of the extra restart.

If you think this is fine, then approve as I have no other issues with these.

Revision history for this message
Laurynas Biveinis (laurynas-biveinis) wrote : Posted in a previous version of this proposal

Right, we should just use the same testcase for both.

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
George Ormond Lorch III (gl-az) wrote :

Not to be nit-pickey but the 5.1 test has one less +INSERT INTO t1 SELECT x FROM t1;

review: Needs Fixing (g2)
Revision history for this message
George Ormond Lorch III (gl-az) wrote :

As discussed in IRC, 5.5 needs one additional INSERT due to the difference in MTR log sizes. 5.1 uses 1MB log and 5.5 uses 5MB log bu default. Approved.

review: Approve (g2)
Revision history for this message
Stewart Smith (stewart) :
review: Approve

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches