3 ms·

You're wrong, and interestingly, you're omitting the key part: > Such statements produce a warning in the error log when using statement-based mode and are wri

You're wrong, and interestingly, you're omitting the key part: > Such statements produce a warning in the error log when using statement-based mode and are written to the binary log using the row-based format when using MIXED mode The problem you're writing about is not related to MySQL itself, it's a problem implicit in statement-based replication. Row/mixed mode replication has been available in MySQL since 5.1 (almost 10 years ago). DBAs must know how replication works, as RDBMSs are not toys. It's naive to think that replication in other RDBMs itjustworks! - see, for example, the replication bug that caused slave corruption to the famous transportation company. The choice to raise a warning rather than stopping replication is arguable, but it's far from being "insanity".

icebraining 9y ago
You do realize that I didn't write "insanity", right? All I said is "can have fun results". In any case, there are two issues described in my post.
- pizza234 9y ago
  Apologies if I confusingly replied to two posts in one, but there is common thread between the two, that is, a judgement on a product/feature, based on a radically uninformed knowledge of the subject. I've spent a few minutes after a Google search; results follow. Bug #11765650: this was fixed 5 and half years ago; see https://lists.mysql.com/commits/143383; https://lists.mysql.com/commits/143383; Bug #58637: see https://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=58637 https://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=58637 - this is not a bug; statement-based replication is obsolete, and it's superseded by mixed-mode - if users insist on using the former, they're asking for trouble.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    If users insist? Statement-based replication remained the default until 2015, full five years after the bug was reported. Even today, the "16.2.1 Replication Formats" page says nothing about it being obsolete, or provide indication of level of danger in choosing it. It's like walking on a minefield where the markers are camouflaged.
pgaddict 9y ago
> DBAs must know how replication works, as RDBMSs are not toys. It's naive to think that replication in other RDBMs itjustworks! - see, for example, the replication bug that caused slave corruption to the famous transportation company. I assume you mean Uber, and the replication bug they ran into on 9.2. Isn't it a bit strange comparing a bug (that got fixed promptly after it was reported) to implementing inherently unsafe replication mode?

icebraining 9y ago

You do realize that I didn't write "insanity", right? All I said is "can have fun results". In any case, there are two issues described in my post.

pizza234 9y ago
Apologies if I confusingly replied to two posts in one, but there is common thread between the two, that is, a judgement on a product/feature, based on a radically uninformed knowledge of the subject. I've spent a few minutes after a Google search; results follow. Bug #11765650: this was fixed 5 and half years ago; see https://lists.mysql.com/commits/143383; https://lists.mysql.com/commits/143383; Bug #58637: see https://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=58637 https://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=58637 - this is not a bug; statement-based replication is obsolete, and it's superseded by mixed-mode - if users insist on using the former, they're asking for trouble.
- icebraining 9y ago
  If users insist? Statement-based replication remained the default until 2015, full five years after the bug was reported. Even today, the "16.2.1 Replication Formats" page says nothing about it being obsolete, or provide indication of level of danger in choosing it. It's like walking on a minefield where the markers are camouflaged.

pgaddict 9y ago

> DBAs must know how replication works, as RDBMSs are not toys. It's naive to think that replication in other RDBMs itjustworks! - see, for example, the replication bug that caused slave corruption to the famous transportation company. I assume you mean Uber, and the replication bug they ran into on 9.2. Isn't it a bit strange comparing a bug (that got fixed promptly after it was reported) to implementing inherently unsafe replication mode?