1. 04 Dec, 2006 3 commits
    • andrey@example.com's avatar
      Merge ahristov@bk-internal.mysql.com:/home/bk/mysql-5.1-maint · 44656a23
      andrey@example.com authored
      into  example.com:/work/bug22369-v2/my51
      44656a23
    • andrey@example.com's avatar
      Fix for bug#22369: Alter table rename combined · e6a47277
      andrey@example.com authored
      with other alterations causes lost tables
      
      Using RENAME clause combined with other clauses of ALTER TABLE led to
      data loss (the data was there but not accessible). This could happen if the
      changes do not change the table much. Adding and droppping of fields and
      indices was safe. Renaming a column with MODIFY or CHANGE was unsafe operation,
      if the actual column didn't change (changing from int to int, which is a noop)
        
      Depending on the storage engine (SE) the behavior is different:
      1)MyISAM/MEMORY - the ALTER TABLE statement completes
        without any error but next SELECT against the new table fails.
      2)InnoDB (and every other transactional table) - The ALTER TABLE statement
        fails. There are the the following files in the db dir -
        `new_table_name.frm` and a temporary table's frm. If the SE is file
        based, then the data and index files will be present but with the old
        names. What happens is that for InnoDB the table is not renamed in the
        internal DDIC.
      
      Fixed by adding additional call to mysql_rename_table() method, which should
      not include FRM file rename, because it has been already done during file
      names juggling.
      e6a47277
    • Kristofer.Pettersson@naruto.'s avatar
      Merge naruto.:C:/cpp/bug17733/my51-bug17733 · be5da5a1
      Kristofer.Pettersson@naruto. authored
      into  naruto.:C:/cpp/mysql-5.1-maint
      be5da5a1
  2. 02 Dec, 2006 3 commits
    • malff/marcsql@weblab.(none)'s avatar
      Merge malff@bk-internal.mysql.com:/home/bk/mysql-5.1-new-maint · 6e3f6b04
      malff/marcsql@weblab.(none) authored
      into  weblab.(none):/home/marcsql/TREE/mysql-5.1-maint-24736
      6e3f6b04
    • andrey@example.com's avatar
      Merge ahristov@bk-internal.mysql.com:/home/bk/mysql-5.1-maint · 32dedbe6
      andrey@example.com authored
      into  example.com:/work/bug24395-v2/my51
      32dedbe6
    • malff/marcsql@weblab.(none)'s avatar
      Bug#24736: UDF functions parsed as Stored Functions · 88ba7676
      malff/marcsql@weblab.(none) authored
      Before this fix, a call to a User Defined Function (UDF) could,
      under some circumstances, be interpreted as a call to a Stored function
      instead. This occurred if a native function was invoked in the parameters
      for the UDF, as in "select my_udf(abs(x))".
      
      The root cause of this defect is the introduction, by the fix for Bug 21809,
      of st_select_lex::udf_list, and it's usage in the parser in sql_yacc.yy
      in the rule function_call_generic (in 5.1).
      
      While the fix itself for Bug 21809 is correct in 5.0, the code change
      merged into the 5.1 release created the issue, because the calls in 5.1 to :
      - lex->current_select->udf_list.push_front(udf)
      - lex->current_select->udf_list.pop()
      are not balanced in case of native functions, causing the udf_list,
      which is really a stack, to be out of sync with the internal stack
      maintained by the bison parser.
      
      Instead of moving the call to udf_list.pop(), which would have fixed the
      symptom, this patch goes further and removes the need for udf_list.
      
      This is motivated by two reasons:
      
      a) Maintaining a stack in the MySQL code in sync with the stack maintained
      internally in sql_yacc.cc (not .yy) is extremely dependent of the
      implementation of yacc/bison, and extremely difficult to maintain.
      It's also totally dependent of the structure of the grammar, and has a risk
      to break with regression defects each time the grammar itself is changed.
      
      b) The previous code did report construct like "foo(expr AS name)" as
      syntax errors (ER_PARSER_ERROR), which is incorrect, and misleading.
      The syntax is perfectly valid, as this expression is valid when "foo" is
      a UDF. Whether this syntax is legal or not depends of the semantic of "foo".
      
      With this change:
      
      a) There is only one stack (in bison), and no List<udf_func> to maintain.
      
      b) "foo(expr AS name)", when used incorrectly, is reported as semantic error:
      - ER_WRONG_PARAMETERS_TO_NATIVE_FCT (for native functions)
      - ER_WRONG_PARAMETERS_TO_STORED_FCT (for stored functions)
      This is achieved by the changes implemented in item_create.cc
      88ba7676
  3. 01 Dec, 2006 8 commits
  4. 30 Nov, 2006 11 commits
  5. 29 Nov, 2006 15 commits