Sergei, > Hi, Andrei! > > On Jun 12, andrei.el...@pp.inet.fi wrote: >> > >> > Did you already test that your commit actually fixes the issue? >> >> Like I said, I did not try after we found it's NFS binlog. I've done it >> right now, but my attempt lasted minutes while in the user's case >> apart of anything specific they needed hours sometimes. > > I don't understand, sorry. > Were you able to repeat the user's error in your NFS tests? >
Sorry, I wanted to say that I tried yesterday to reproduce the bug with few minutes testing against the base sources, and resultlessly. It could be that I needed to run for a lot more time, or only their NFS is prone to the bug. >> I am committing a new patch which sustains the simulation test of the >> old one. > > I don't quite like the test case. It may have nothing to do with the > user's bug - we still don't know why it happens > and we weren't able to > repeat it, as far as I understand. I could not reproduce. But let us see how the user will do. Personally I have 0% of doubt in that the fixes have made it. > > If you just want to test that IO_CACHE doesn't read beyond end_of_file, > it's a good thing to test, I agree. But it should be a unit test. > So, please, remove this replication test and put a unit test for > end_of_file into unittest/sql/mf_iocache-t.cc I'm considering. Thanks! Andrei _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
