Details
-
Bug
-
Status: Closed (View Workflow)
-
Minor
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
5.5.28a-galera
-
None
Description
I've set the 'Fix Version' to 5.5.28-galera just because there is no next one on the list. In fact, it's not urgent, I think we need a decision on this by GA.
Currently MariaDB-Galera builds have something like that in the %version% variables (example from a Centos 5 x86_64 RPM):
Welcome to the MariaDB monitor. Commands end with ; or \g.
|
Your MariaDB connection id is 3
|
Server version: 5.5.28-MariaDB MariaDB Server, wsrep_23.7.rXXXX
|
|
|
Copyright (c) 2000, 2012, Oracle, Monty Program Ab and others.
|
|
|
Type 'help;' or '\h' for help. Type '\c' to clear the current input statement.
|
|
|
MariaDB [(none)]> show variables like '%version%';
|
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
|
| Variable_name | Value |
|
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
|
| innodb_version | 1.1.8-29.0 |
|
| protocol_version | 10 |
|
| slave_type_conversions | |
|
| version | 5.5.28-MariaDB |
|
| version_comment | MariaDB Server, wsrep_23.7.rXXXX |
|
| version_compile_machine | x86_64 |
|
| version_compile_os | Linux |
|
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+
|
7 rows in set (0.00 sec)
|
So, the version field does not say anything about Galera at all. One can still figure out it's a Galera package based on 'wsrep' in version_comment (although wsrep_23.7.rXXXX is not very nice and helpful, either).
Questions are:
1) do we want to mention Galera in @@version;
2) should we make the wsrep* part either more informative (the real revision) or shorter (remove rXXXX)
We briefly discussed (1) with Serg on IRC and came to conclusion that it's not critical, although possibly could make sense. So, we just need a decision.
Attachments
Activity
| Field | Original Value | New Value |
|---|---|---|
| Link | This issue relates to TODO-216 [ TODO-216 ] |
| Fix Version/s | 5.5.29-galera [ 12300 ] | |
| Fix Version/s | 5.5.28a-galera [ 11501 ] |
| Fix Version/s | 5.5.30-galera [ 12800 ] | |
| Fix Version/s | 5.5.29-galera [ 12300 ] |
| Fix Version/s | 5.5.xx-galera [ 13203 ] | |
| Fix Version/s | 5.5.31-galera [ 12800 ] |
| Fix Version/s | 5.5.33-galera [ 13600 ] | |
| Fix Version/s | 5.5.32-galera [ 13203 ] |
| Fix Version/s | 5.5.34-galera [ 13900 ] | |
| Fix Version/s | 5.5.33a-galera [ 13600 ] |
| Assignee | Rasmus Johansson [ ratzpo ] | Nirbhay Choubey [ nirbhay_c ] |
>> 1) do we want to mention Galera in @@version;
IMHO, using 'wsrep' instead, should be more appropriate. This would signify that the server
is wsrep-capable and, wsrep providers (like Galera) can be plugged in.
Now, since @@version_comment already specifies this, do we really need this in @@version?
>> 2) should we make the wsrep* part either more informative (the real revision) or shorter (remove rXXXX)
While building, cmake tries to determine the current bzr revision using $ENV
{WSREP_REV} and then "bzr revno".
If both fails, it replaces the revision number with XXXX. I would drop the revision part altogether if revision
number cannot be determined.
| Status | Open [ 1 ] | In Progress [ 3 ] |
| Resolution | Fixed [ 1 ] | |
| Status | In Progress [ 3 ] | Closed [ 6 ] |
| Workflow | defaullt [ 25422 ] | MariaDB v2 [ 46578 ] |
| Workflow | MariaDB v2 [ 46578 ] | MariaDB v3 [ 67288 ] |
| Workflow | MariaDB v3 [ 67288 ] | MariaDB v4 [ 146230 ] |
1) I would vote for adding Galera to the @@version, e.g. in the above case 5.5.28-MariaDB-Galera. But we need to make sure that this doesn't break any client tools that might be using @@version.
2) version_comment should in my mind include the correct version number on wsrep