I am running a couple of databases on MySQL 5.0.45 and am trying to get my legacy database to sync with a revised schema, so I can run both side by side. I am doing this by adding triggers to the new database but I am running into problems with replication. My set up is as follows.
Server "master"
Database "legacydb", replicates to server "slave".
Database "newdb", has triggers which update "legacydb" and no replication.
Server "slave"
Database "legacydb"
My updates to "newdb" run fine, and set off my triggers. They update "legacydb" on "master" server. However, the changes are not replicated down to the slaves. The MySQL docs say that for simplicity replication looks at the current database context (e.g. "SELECT DATABASE();" ) when deciding which queries to replicate rather than looking at the product of the query. My trigger is run from the context of database "newdb", so replication ignores the updates.
I have tried moving the update statement to a stored procedure in "legacydb". This works fine (i.e. data replicates to slave) when I connect to "master" and manually run "USE newdb; CALL legacydb.do_update('Foobar', 1, 2, 3, 4);". However, when this procedure is called from a trigger it does not replicate.
So far my thinking on how to fix this has been one of the following.
Force the trigger to set a new current database. This would be easiest, but I don't think this is possible. This is what I hoped to achieve with the stored procedure.
Replicate both databases, and have triggers in both master and slave. This would be possible, but a pain to set up.
Force the replication to pick up all changes to "legacydb", regardless of the current database context.
If replication runs at too high a level, it will never even see any updates run by my trigger, in which case no amount of hacking is going to achieve what I want.
Any help on how to achieve this would be greatly appreciated.
This may have something to do with it:
A stored function acquires table locks before executing, to avoid inconsistency in the binary log due to mismatch of the order in which statements execute and when they appear in the log. Statements that invoke a function are recorded rather than the statements executed within the function. Consequently, stored functions that update the same underlying tables do not execute in parallel.
In contrast, stored procedures do not acquire table-level locks. All statements executed within stored procedures are written to the binary log.
Additionally, there are a whole list of issues with Triggers:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/routine-restrictions.html
Related
So my situation is as follows:
There is a single Master-Slave Replication on a MySQL 5.5 basis.
The master use a small SSD as data partition.
Therefore I want to clean a certain Inno Table (lets call this table MasterA) and move old (datediff < -2) rows to another database on the slave (SlaveA) with more space on the SATA-HDD.
The problem gets interesting as in some cases I need to access data from SlaveA.
So I think it would be the best if an event triggers a transaction like this:
INSERT INTO SlaveA SELECT * FROM MasterA WHERE datediff(created, now()) < -2;
DELETE FROM MasterA WHERE datediff(created, now()) < -2;
But how could I access SlaveA from the master? I already tried the federated engine, but it gets stuck with the read_only option activated on the slave and the super privilege for the user accessing the federated table.
Maybe the event should only call the copy query on the slave, but how to delete the rows on the master afterwards?
There should be other options than installing MySQL 5.6 and use another partition for the SlaveA table on the master.
Thanks in advance!
An external daemon process (with handles to both databases) could accomplish what you are looking for but it is not a very clean solution.
If you did have a single handle with access to both databases a trigger would be a viable solution. I would change your code to use a MySQL user defined variable setting it in the first statement and use it in the second statement.
On the other hand I would question why you think you need the write master on a SSD. Insert queries are normally a lot cheaper than delete queries. If you make sure all the reads are against the slaves the master should have very minimal latency. I would recommend putting it on SATA HDD and not running delete quires against it. Then you don't have to create a custom trigger; MySQL's built in replication should work just fine.
According to MySQL Performance Blog, the new Percona Servers, announced yesterday (May 6), both include the open source version of the MySQL Audit Plugin.
The task I want to accomplish is: log the tables affected by cascade trigger execution during one single update query run. E. g. when UPDATE MY_TABLE … is executed, the triggers {BEFORE,AFTER}_UPDATE may update other tables, on which there might be their own triggers, etc.
Currently I use the domestic solution; inside all triggers I put smth like:
IF (
SELECT count(*)
FROM `information_schema`.`ROUTINES`
WHERE specific_name = 'my_own_log'
AND routine_schema = 'my_schema'
) > 0 THEN
CALL my_own_log ('FOO_TRIGGER', 'Hi, I’m to update MY_TABLE') ;
END IF ;
In production I don’t have the my_own_log procedure defined and since the information_schema table is well-optimized, I don’t yield any performance penalties.
The question is if I could switch to enterprise solution (aforementioned audit plugin) to harvest an information about which tables were affected by cascade trigger execution. JFYI: the only similar question I have found here is not supplied with an applicable answer.
Thanks for any suggestions.
Plugin auditing is designed to register outside interactions with the server, being used to track invasion and other related activities, not interactions of the server with itself (like triggers and procedures).
These internal activities will not generate actions on any audit plugin by design. From the dev blog:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/audit-log-plugin-logging-control.html
The MySQL server calls the audit log plugin to write an element whenever an auditable event occurs, such as when it completes execution of an SQL statement received from a client. Typically the first element written after server startup has the server description and startup options. Elements following that one represent events such as client connect and disconnect events, executed SQL statements, and so forth. Only top-level statements are logged, not statements within stored programs such as triggers or stored procedures. Contents of files referenced by statements such as LOAD DATA INFILE are not logged.
For now, you are better with your homegrown solution. You could try to improve its performance so you can turn it on in the production environment.
I currently have a PostgreSQL database, because one of the pieces of software we're using only supports this particular database engine. I then have a query which summarizes and splits the data from the app into a more useful format.
In my MySQL database, I have a table which contains an identical schema to the output of the query described above.
What I would like to develop is an hourly cron job which will run the query against the PostgreSQL database, then insert the results into the MySQL database. During the hour period, I don't expect to ever see more than 10,000 new rows (and that's a stretch) which would need to be transferred.
Both databases are on separate physical servers, continents apart from one another. The MySQL instance runs on Amazon RDS - so we don't have a lot of control over the machine itself. The PostgreSQL instance runs on a VM on one of our servers, giving us complete control.
The duplication is, unfortunately, necessary because the PostgreSQL database only acts as a collector for the information, while the MySQL database has an application running on it which needs the data. For simplicity, we're wanting to do the move/merge and delete from PostgreSQL hourly to keep things clean.
To be clear - I'm a network/sysadmin guy - not a DBA. I don't really understand all of the intricacies necessary in converting one format to the other. What I do know is that the data being transferred consists of 1xVARCHAR, 1xDATETIME and 6xBIGINT columns.
The closest guess I have for an approach is to use some scripting language to make the query, convert results into an internal data structure, then split it back out to MySQL again.
In doing so, are there any particular good or bad practices I should be wary of when writing the script? Or - any documentation that I should look at which might be useful for doing this kind of conversion? I've found plenty of scheduling jobs which look very manageable and well-documented, but the ongoing nature of this script (hourly run) seems less common and/or less documented.
Open to any suggestions.
Use the same database system on both ends and use replication
If your remote end was also PostgreSQL, you could use streaming replication with hot standby to keep the remote end in sync with the local one transparently and automatically.
If the local end and remote end were both MySQL, you could do something similar using MySQL's various replication features like binlog replication.
Sync using an external script
There's nothing wrong with using an external script. In fact, even if you use DBI-Link or similar (see below) you probably have to use an external script (or psql) from a cron job to initiate repliation, unless you're going to use PgAgent to do it.
Either accumulate rows in a queue table maintained by a trigger procedure, or make sure you can write a query that always reliably selects only the new rows. Then connect to the target database and INSERT the new rows.
If the rows to be copied are too big to comfortably fit in memory you can use a cursor and read the rows with FETCH, which can be helpful if the rows to be copied are too big to comfortably fit in memory.
I'd do the work in this order:
Connect to PostgreSQL
Connect to MySQL
Begin a PostgreSQL transaction
Begin a MySQL transaction. If your MySQL is using MyISAM, go and fix it now.
Read the rows from PostgreSQL, possibly via a cursor or with DELETE FROM queue_table RETURNING *
Insert them into MySQL
DELETE any rows from the queue table in PostgreSQL if you haven't already.
COMMIT the MySQL transaction.
If the MySQL COMMIT succeeded, COMMIT the PostgreSQL transaction. If it failed, ROLLBACK the PostgreSQL transaction and try the whole thing again.
The PostgreSQL COMMIT is incredibly unlikely to fail because it's a local database, but if you need perfect reliability you can use two-phase commit on the PostgreSQL side, where you:
PREPARE TRANSACTION in PostgreSQL
COMMIT in MySQL
then either COMMIT PREPARED or ROLLBACK PREPARED in PostgreSQL depending on the outcome of the MySQL commit.
This is likely too complicated for your needs, but is the only way to be totally sure the change happens on both databases or neither, never just one.
BTW, seriously, if your MySQL is using MyISAM table storage, you should probably remedy that. It's vulnerable to data loss on crash, and it can't be transactionally updated. Convert to InnoDB.
Use DBI-Link in PostgreSQL
Maybe it's because I'm comfortable with PostgreSQL, but I'd do this using a PostgreSQL function that used DBI-link via PL/Perlu to do the job.
When replication should take place, I'd run a PL/PgSQL or PL/Perl procedure that uses DBI-Link to connect to the MySQL database and insert the data in the queue table.
Many examples exist for DBI-Link, so I won't repeat them here. This is a common use case.
Use a trigger to queue changes and DBI-link to sync
If you only want to copy new rows and your table is append-only, you could write a trigger procedure that appends all newly INSERTed rows into a separate queue table with the same definition as the main table. When you want to sync, your sync procedure can then in a single transaction LOCK TABLE the_queue_table IN EXCLUSIVE MODE;, copy the data, and DELETE FROM the_queue_table;. This guarantees that no rows will be lost, though it only works for INSERT-only tables. Handling UPDATE and DELETE on the target table is possible, but much more complicated.
Add MySQL to PostgreSQL with a foreign data wrapper
Alternately, for PostgreSQL 9.1 and above, I might consider using the MySQL Foreign Data Wrapper, ODBC FDW or JDBC FDW to allow PostgreSQL to see the remote MySQL table as if it were a local table. Then I could just use a writable CTE to copy the data.
WITH moved_rows AS (
DELETE FROM queue_table RETURNING *
)
INSERT INTO mysql_table
SELECT * FROM moved_rows;
In short you have two scenarios:
1) Make destination pull the data from source into its own structure
2) Make source push out the data from its structure to destination
I'd rather try the second one, look around and find a way to create postgresql trigger or some special "virtual" table, or maybe pl/pgsql function - then instead of external script, you'll be able to execute the procedure by executing some query from cron, or possibly from inside postgres, there are some possibilities of operation scheduling.
I'd choose 2nd scenario, because postgres is much more flexible, and manipulating data some special, DIY ways - you will simply have more possibilities.
External script probably isn't a good solution, e.g. because you will need to treat binary data with special care, or convert dates× from DATE to VARCHAR and then to DATE again. Inside external script, various text-stored data will be probably just strings, and you will need to quote it too.
I wonder if there is any easy way to keep the scheme consistent in two different MySQL clusters. Apart from classic replication, I would like to have a special "replication" which would reproduce all DDL queries (CREATE, ALTER, DROP, ...) on another cluster (namely the master of that cluster).
I don't need the actual data to be replicated.
Has anyone ever done or tried anything like this?
You can filter replication in MySQL based upon the database in which a query was executed. That doesn't prevent you making changes in other databases, however! So you can do;
USE ddl_repl_db;
ALTER TABLE other_db.foo ADD COLUMN <etc>
This relies on you configuring your servers correctly. I haven't set up MySQL replication for a while, but IIRC you can both filter what you send out from the master for replication and what you accept on the slave.
Old but still high in search.
So, on you DDL replica set all tables engine to BLACKHOLE
Ok,I'm running a setup with a single master and a number of slaves. All writes go through the master and are replicated down to the slaves which are used strictly for reads.
Now I have a stored procedure (not function) which is called by a trigger on an insert. According to the MySQL docs, for replication triggers log the call to the trigger while stored procedures actually log the result of the stored procedure.
So my question is, when my trigger gets fired, will it replicate both the trigger and the results of the procedure that the trigger calls (resulting in the procedure effectively being run twice)? Or will it simply replicate the trigger have the slaves re-run the stored procedure on their own?
Thanks
In MySQL 5.0 (and MySQL 5.1 with statement based binary logging), only the calling query is logged, so in your case, the INSERT would be logged.
On the slave, the INSERT will be executed and then the trigger will be re-run on the slave. So the trigger needs to exist on the slave, and assuming it does, then it will be executed in exactly the same way as the master.
In MySQL 5.1, there is row-based binary logging, which will log only the rows being changed, so the trigger would not be re-fired on the slave, but all rows that changed would still be propagated.
In addition to Harrison's excellent answer:
Assuming the databases are in sync (schema, data, same version) to start with, it should just work
If it doesn't, then it may be that you're using something non deterministic in your queries or trigger. Fix that.
Regardless of how you use replication, you need to have monitoring to check that the slaves are always in sync. Without any monitoring, they will become out of sync (subtly) and you won't notice. MySQL has no automatic built-in feature for checking this or fixing it.