Details
-
Type:
Bug
-
Status: Closed
-
Priority:
Minor
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Affects Version/s: 5.5.28a-galera
-
Fix Version/s: 5.5.34-galera
-
Component/s: None
-
Labels:
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.
Gliffy Diagrams
Attachments
Activity
- All
- Comments
- Work Log
- History
- Activity
- Transitions
>> 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.
VERSION(): 5.5.33a-MariaDB-wsrep-debug-log
Pushed to maria-5.5-galera.
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