Bogdan TARU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And data is inserted into it with simple inserts, w/o specifing the id > (it's autoincrementing). > > With a little debugging, I have located the problem. If I run 'alter > table xxx auto_increment=1' on both the master and the slave (this table > is empty at the time on both machines), and then I insert datas into the > master, they look like: > > On master: > > +----+--------+------+------------+--------+----------+---------------+--------+ > | 1 | 3 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 2 | 4 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 3 | 5 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 4 | 6 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 5 | 13 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 6 | 14 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 7 | 18 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 8 | 19 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 9 | 20 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 10 | 21 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > +----+--------+------+------------+--------+----------+------+--------+ > > But on slave it looks like: > > +----+--------+------+------------+--------+----------+------+--------+ > | id | dialer | uid | action | acc_no | template | name | status | > +----+--------+------+------------+--------+----------+------+--------+ > | 10 | 3 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 11 | 4 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 12 | 5 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 13 | 6 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 14 | 13 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 15 | 14 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 16 | 18 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 17 | 19 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 18 | 20 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > | 19 | 21 | 1007 | REGENERATE | NULL | NULL | NULL | OKAY | > +----+--------+------+------------+--------+----------+------+--------+ > > > Why does it start on the id=10 on the slave? Of course, this is the > cause for the replication failures later on, because datas are deleted on > the master with 'delete from xxx where id=3', for example, action which > doesn't delete anything on the slave (because there is no id=3 entry), > thus inconsistency. > > I'm using 4.0.13 on both machines.
I wasn't able to repeat it on 4.0.14. Could you provide a test case? What replication options do you use? -- For technical support contracts, goto https://order.mysql.com/?ref=ensita This email is sponsored by Ensita.net http://www.ensita.net/ __ ___ ___ ____ __ / |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Victoria Reznichenko / /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ MySQL AB / Ensita.net <___/ www.mysql.com -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
