Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Tale of Two MySQL Bugs

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the just-buy-our-more-expensive-widget-instead dept.

Databases 191

New submitter Archie Cobbs writes "Last May I encountered a relatively obscure performance bug present in both MySQL 5.5.x and MariaDB 5.5.x (not surprising since they share the same codebase). This turned out to be a great opportunity to see whether Oracle or the MariaDB project is more responsive to bug reports. On May 31 Oracle got their bug report; within 24 hours they had confirmed the bug — pretty impressive. But since then, it's been radio silence for 3 months and counting. On July 25, MariaDB got their own copy. Within a week, a MariaDB developer had analyzed the bug and committed a patch. The resulting fix will be included in the next release, MariaDB 5.5.33."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

who cares? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44803997)

mysql is of historical curiosity. At best.

Re:who cares? (4, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#44804071)

mysql is of historical curiosity. At best.

I'd be willing to bet there are more deployments of MySQL than of all other standalone RDBMSs combined.

Re:who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804087)

Because we all know that's how you tell that something's better.

Re:who cares? (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44804113)

Because we all know that's how you tell that something's better.

I'm taking my Betamax tapes and going home! And get off my lawn!

Re:who cares? (5, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44804339)

Some people never learn until you throw a laser disc at them. It smarts enough that they normally don't want a repeat.

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805487)

Why would you throw a Laserdisc? They're, like, 60 bucks!

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805513)

Why? [youtube.com]

Re:who cares? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804209)

Read the post quoted above you fucklord. It had nothing to do with how good MySQL was and everything to do with how "irrelevant" it is even though it's used on every single fucking shared hosting box ever.

And yes, it sucks.

Re:who cares? (5, Insightful)

Literaphile (927079) | about a year ago | (#44804497)

No, but it is how you tell whether something is "of historical curiosity", which obviously MySQL is not, since it's the most popular RDBMS by far.

Re:who cares? (3, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year ago | (#44804579)

[Citation Needed]. Among industry watchers the two most popular RDBMS systems are considered to be Oracle and Microsoft's SQL Server. MySQL is in the same ballpark, but it certainly doesn't have a large lead. Here's one survey [db-engines.com] showing that via a few metrics they combine. You'll get the same sort of ranking if you dig into most market surveys.

Re:who cares? (3, Informative)

Literaphile (927079) | about a year ago | (#44804619)

  1. MSSQL is ahead by a whopping 8 points in that scale, 1313 to 1305. Next month, the scores could be reversed.
  2. All that "survey" really measures is how much people are talking about the systems, not their actual usage. I'll bet you'll find MySQL installed on more active servers than Oracle or MSSQL, especially since it's the go-to choice for shared hosting.

Re:who cares? (3, Insightful)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year ago | (#44804823)

You might not agree with their methodology, but I did provide a reference for my claim. You should try it some time. Betting on a hunch is not a path to successful argument.

Re:who cares? (1)

Literaphile (927079) | about a year ago | (#44804869)

"The DB-Engines Ranking does not measure the number of installations of the systems, or their use within IT systems." ( http://db-engines.com/en/ranking_definition [db-engines.com] )

Re:who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805545)

"You're wrong, here's why you're wrong. Here's evidence that your methods are wrong. No, I won't give you an alternative method of measurement, that would make me a productive commenter, I just came here to show you all how smart I am, Fuck productive discussion."

This is what everyone who isn't a shithead like you sees when people like you write comments like that.

Re:who cares? (2)

znrt (2424692) | about a year ago | (#44805333)

[Citation Needed]. Among industry watchers the two most popular RDBMS systems are considered to be Oracle and Microsoft's SQL Server. MySQL is in the same ballpark, but it certainly doesn't have a large lead.

well, in terms of price/performance ratio mysql/mariaDB simply cannot be beaten :D

bytheway, as someone who grew up in engineering using db2, I can tell you oracle and sqlserver are two steaming piles of expensive crap. if you use them, you are doing it wrong, you should look for more value for your money.

Re:who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805423)

[Citation Needed]. Among industry watchers the two most popular RDBMS systems are considered to be Oracle and Microsoft's SQL Server. MySQL is in the same ballpark, but it certainly doesn't have a large lead.

well, in terms of price mysql/mariaDB simply cannot be beaten :D

bytheway, as someone who grew up in engineering using db2, I can tell you oracle and sqlserver are two steaming piles of expensive crap. if you use them, you are doing it wrong, you should look for more value for your money.

Fixed that for you. Not everyone uses one database instance with a single user/password for each application. (Not to mention that some weirdos think that's the right way to handle it and require full db access for their software.) If you need to have more than a 1 to 1 mysql to php setup you need a database with a workable user management.

Re:who cares? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#44804721)

Being better is irrelevant to whether something is "of historical curiosity" or is actually in widespread current use.

Maybe you should learn to read?

Re:who cares? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#44805413)

Who said anything about better? We're talking about irrelevance.

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805531)

Because nobody said anything about how good it was. Just whether it is of current interest.

Re:who cares? (1)

Score Whore (32328) | about a year ago | (#44804183)

I bet there are more sqlite and berkeleydb's out there than mysql.

Re:who cares? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#44804407)

That's why he said "standalone" databases, to exclude sqlite. I never knew about Berkeley DB though, lol. It has been seized by Oracle in 2006.

Re:who cares? (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44804617)

I never knew about Berkeley DB though, lol. It has been seized by Oracle in 2006.

If you work on a FLOSS project that uses BDB, seriously consider if LMDB [symas.com] can work for you as well (or often better).

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804629)

Berkeley DB isn't an RDBMS; it's a key-value store. Whether it's a "database" depends upon the definition of that word, but it's definitely not a *relational* database.

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805401)

mysql is of historical curiosity. At best.

I'd be willing to bet there are more deployments of MySQL than of all other standalone RDBMSs combined.

Which you will loose, as that spot is taken by SQLite [sqlite.org] .

Re:who cares? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44805417)

Correct. Also correct: "lose".

Re:who cares? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#44805465)

Incorrect as SQLlite isn't a stand alone which was clearly a qualifier. A word of advice, best not to correct other's for spelling as you will often make a mistake as bad or worse.

Re: who cares? (1)

JPeMu (942971) | about a year ago | (#44805497)

Let me guess: Your advice here to "other's" (sic) was just your attempt at irony?

Re:who cares? (5, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year ago | (#44805419)

The confusion arising from the fact that oracle mysql shares the same name with the former mysql, while mariadb which is philosophically the natural heir of the latter had to choose a different name.

Apparently Oracle did the right thing by buying up the name, many fall for it and many others mod them up. Depressing, huh.
And now you all proper slashdotters are thanking God that something named "postgresql" has basically no marketing value, aren't you.

Re:who cares? (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#44805483)

Or maybe, just maybe, nobody trusts old "three card Monty" not to sell their work out from under them again? last I checked old Monty still made you sign rights over to him, how much you wanna bet if some corp comes flashing a big check that you'll be saying the same bullshit about mariadb?

Fool you once, shame on me. Fool you twice? You are a moron and deserve what you get.

Why fix it? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804011)

Why would Oracle fix a bug in something they're trying to kill off?

Re:Why fix it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805529)

I think the correct question is, Why would Oracle spend resources on fixing a bug if it's going to be fixed for free in the fork anyway? Run a diff and *presto*, problem solved.

Re:Why fix it? (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year ago | (#44805587)

Apart from the copyright issues, pretty much. They'd better not do it though since they currently have all the copyright to MySQL code and incorporating a patch this way would kill all the advantages to this (namely, the option to close-source MySQL)

A Post with an Agenda (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804019)

It's very obvious the poster is an anti-Oracle crusader. Has anyone checked with Oracle on the status of this?

Re:A Post with an Agenda (5, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#44804027)

Well, DONTGIVEAFUCK is one of the statuses on their Bugzilla. Just sayin'.

Re:A Post with an Agenda (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804097)

The bug report link's in the summary, moron.

Re:A Post with an Agenda (3, Funny)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#44804141)

Has anyone checked with Oracle on the status of this?

I checked. They said they are waiting for the NSA to approve the code change.

No they didn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804463)

They said they are waiting for the NSA to approve the code change.

If anyone says they are acting under orders from the NSA, they are lying.

On the other hand, if they aren't saying that they are acting under orders from the NSA....

We need more data (4, Interesting)

WWJohnBrowningDo (2792397) | about a year ago | (#44804025)

A sample size of one is insufficient to make any meaningful conclusions.

Anyone up for scraping the two bug trackers and finding more identical bug reports?

Re:We need more data (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804043)

Except in 3D printing and private space stories. Then one single event charts the course for human history for the next millennium.

Translation (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#44804093)

I engineered a fake test based on my persona bias, and the outcome was as predicted. Now, maybe RMS will let me suck his big hairy cock.

Re:Translation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804121)

I engineered a fake test based on my persona bias, and the outcome was as predicted. Now, maybe RMS will let me suck his big hairy cock.

RMS' cock is actually very small. All of this free software non-sense is a way of compensating.

Re:Translation (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#44804427)

Yea, I trust you on accurately reporting this.

Just the facts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804529)

It's well known that the "Earth Momas" that regularly flock to RMS events and throw themselves at him, exchange flea communities with him, his "bush" is a variable "wild life park".

In fact, RMS makes his women sign a non-disclosure agreement prior to coitus.

 

Re:Just the facts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804583)

It's "veritable", you goose, not "variable". If you're going to delve into the fine art of rhetoric, at least educate yourself first :-)

Re:Translation (2)

Score Whore (32328) | about a year ago | (#44804213)

Indeed. This "bug" seems pretty stupid. I mean on the submitter's part. Why would any vendor spend much time solving this problem when it should be simple enough not to write such stupid SQL to begin with. Anyone who spent time working on this probably had nothing much better to do.

I mean really, I get it, but what is the use case for 'if a constant is equal to a different constant'?

Re:Translation (1, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#44804303)

Indeed. This "bug" seems pretty stupid. I mean on the submitter's part. Why would any vendor spend much time solving this problem when it should be simple enough not to write such stupid SQL to begin with. Anyone who spent time working on this probably had nothing much better to do.

I mean really, I get it, but what is the use case for 'if a constant is equal to a different constant'?

That's what I thought when the submitter said:

But when I comment out the 'M002649397' IS NULL OR clause (which has no effect on the result),

Yes, I guess technically this is a bug, but the obvious answer seems to be "Don't write stupid code in the first place". If you can take it out with no effect on the result, then why is it in there in the first place?

Re:Translation (3, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | about a year ago | (#44804691)

If you can take it out with no effect on the result, then why is it in there in the first place?

Dynamic query generation? The literal might actually be a variable on the client side - say, the contents of some optional string.

Re:Translation (2)

Derek Pomery (2028) | about a year ago | (#44804749)

Yep.
select 1 from
table where
(? IS NULL OR foo = ?) and
(? IS NULL OR bar = ?) and
(? IS NULL OR baz = ?)

where foo, bar and baz are all optional.

coalesce (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#44804879)

-- coalesce returns the first argument that is not null
select 1 from
table where
(coalesce(?, foo) = foo) and
(coalesce(?, bar) = bar) and
(coalesce(?, baz) = baz)

Re: Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805017)

Clearly you haven't worked with many Indian developers before.

Re:Translation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804329)

There is no such thing as a stupid bug. As for stupid posts that one is still up in the air.

Re:Translation (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year ago | (#44804603)

I'm guessing if the SQL is generated programatically, you might get a constant = constant clause, although I'm having difficultly thinking of any sane situation where that would occur.

Re:We need more data (4, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year ago | (#44804335)

A sample size of one is insufficient to make any meaningful conclusions.

That sort of thinking won't get you very far in politics.

Re:We need more data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804659)

right u r; idiotic to make a deal of one bug
aside from sample size, maybe oracle said, we have more important bug then a minor performance issue....

Re:We need more data (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44804763)

You also have to wonder about the two month delay in sending the bug to mariaDB. Did that allow them to take advantage of some over the beer mug discussion with Oracle employees about who was going to release it first?

Re:We need more data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804999)

I found a bug where they have a btree index counter for a memory table as a uint (32 bits) instead of something like ssize_t. Ran out of "space" in the table way, way before the memory ran out. mysql still has the bug. MariaDB found and fixed the bug. Unfortunately, can't get a modern enough version of MariaDB installed at work (admins will only install what's available in yum, and this fix hasn't made it to redhat yet). I was able to find a workaround by switching index type from btree to hash. Not as fast but adequate for my purposes...and it doesn't lock the table up.

Re: We need more data (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805455)

If you are waiting for it to get to Red Hat, have you submitted a bug with Red Hat so that they can prioritise and back port the fix to the version of MySQL in RHEL?

Re: We need more data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805253)

We (Avature) contacted MySQL, Percona and MariaDB about indexes not being chosen correctly when there's a so-so index and a ln excellent order by + limit index in another table.

Oracle simply didn't answer. Percona arranged a call with a non technical person which misunderstood the issue and later on after clarification said that it was too complicated for them to develop the implementation. At MariaDB Monty answered right away with a reasonable suggestion and after a few exchanges someone on their side quickly did a very good spec (https://mariadb.atlassian.net/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/MDEV-4205). We switched to MariaDB for this (but still didn't contact them back to do the development: my own fault due to lack of time).

Re:We need more data (1)

zeptic (323902) | about a year ago | (#44805339)

Why don't they do that themeselves?

This is surprising why? (5, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about a year ago | (#44804037)

Small projects can be about purity. Making the best possible code base you can. Especially ones where people work on it for free -- they wouldn't be working on it if they didn't deeply believe in it.

Large corporations have different goals. The success of a changeset is not measured in how many bugs you fix or even how many features you add, but how much positive impact your paying customers and shareholders perceive.

Re:This is surprising why? (1)

brit74 (831798) | about a year ago | (#44804215)

Small projects can be about purity. Making the best possible code base you can. Especially ones where people work on it for free -- they wouldn't be working on it if they didn't deeply believe in it.

That may be true, but if people are working for free, the project can suffer from an inadequate amount of labor and the existing workers might have trouble getting stuff done in addition to their day job.

Re:This is surprising why? (2)

znrt (2424692) | about a year ago | (#44805447)

That may be true, but if people are working for free, the project can suffer from an inadequate amount of labor and the existing workers might have trouble getting stuff done in addition to their day job.

this does happen in medium-big software companies too. not because of lack of resources, but because of poor management or just because "existing workers might have trouble getting stuff done *right* because of 'other priorities' ".

Re:This is surprising why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804545)

Small projects can be about purity. Making the best possible code base you can....

The purest bugs are untainted by fixes or code patches.

Re:This is surprising why? (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44805053)

That doesn't change the equation one iota. Do you want the one that promptly fixes bugs or the one that holds off until the stockholders vote?

3+ months to fix? (0, Redundant)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44804041)

The NSA took its own time to plant backdoors in the vulnerable systems, or forgot to reply back to Oracle that they finally can roll the fix.

Well... (5, Insightful)

Ramirozz (758009) | about a year ago | (#44804047)

If he would have the right intention to measure response time both bug reports should have been filed at the same time... filing a seocnd one with the text saying "hoping it gets more attention than the competition" is pretty biased and provocative to the actions.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804641)

Meh its Oracle, with their history I think anything short of shanking them with a rusty spoon is pretty fair.

Re:Well... (1)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year ago | (#44804773)

Shanking with a rusty spoon? No, now the correct way to describe unfairness on Oracle's side is that you're adding weight to a kingpost [sail-world.com] .

Not really a fair test (5, Insightful)

greenreaper (205818) | about a year ago | (#44804069)

The poster made a comment in the second bug saying that they hoped to get a faster response than on the MySQL bug.

Re:Not really a fair test (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804787)

why the hell did the stupid fuck decide to rip on oracle a bit in the submission to maira? what a moron. tainted data, worthless article. thanks for wastin my time.

fast, but wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804127)

Ok, they fixed it. But did they actually fix it? MySQL is full of places where the developers didn't think about they were doing or cut corners.

Example: Let's say you want a column that auto-populates with the current time. In most databases, you would write a before insert trigger or have a column default of getdate(). A little extra work, but more flexibility and control. In MYSQL, you just use a timestamp column. What if you want two of them (say, inserted and updated)? Well, fuck you, MySQL can't do that.

Re:fast, but wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804195)

Well, fuck you, MySQL can't do that.

Then why don't you just write a fucking before insert trigger, just like most other databases? You expect MySQL to act like it's fucking magic and then complain when it's not the magic you want. Fucker.

Worst part (1)

aitikin (909209) | about a year ago | (#44804133)

is it appears the person assigned the bug only has one to work on (or I don't understand how the bug-zilla handles that).

Re:Worst part (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804399)

Aw man, what if we're all going lynch mob crazy over something that seemed trivial so they gave it to a highschool intern, and the intern is trying to be extra careful in submitting his first bugfix.

Re:Worst part (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#44804491)

More likely, the intern found a more interesting project to work on and is hoping that his/her boss doesn't notice they didn't fix that bug before they go back to school.

Re:Worst part (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805185)

The "intern" to whom the Oracle's version of the bug is assigned is Sinisa Milivojevic, who has been the head manager for MySQL Support for 10+ years. He was originally hired by Monty to start up MySQL AB's Support operation.

And it is very possible that he himself will write a fix for it, when he has some spare time to play with something that is basically an edge case brought on by some incredibly shitty SQL.

Oracle probably did testing.... (2)

Proudrooster (580120) | about a year ago | (#44804167)

Oracle, love'em or hate'em makes some rock solid databases. The reason for the delay in the patch release was most likely testing and validation of the patch. I am assuming Oracle does this for MySQL but, what do I know?

Re:Oracle probably did testing.... (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#44804447)

but, what do I know?

Clearly not a lot, yet still you infer to know a great deal.
Ever considered getting into politics?

Re:Oracle probably did testing.... (1)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year ago | (#44804553)

Not sure which is funnier; the idea that MySQL is a "rock solid databases" or that Oracle cares about validating its optimizer. I'll just point you at Top 10 Optimizer Regression Bugs in MySQL 5.6 [blogspot.com] and wander off now.

Re:Oracle probably did testing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804681)

Oracle, love'em or hate'em makes some rock solid databases.

Which I guess is why more than once I've had to insert index hints because the EXPLAIN PLAN revealed that Oracle couldn't figure out it had an index on a primary key.

So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804179)

So what OP, want a cookie?

What about 10 year old mysql bugs? (4, Interesting)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#44804293)

For example, #1341. 10 fucking years old.

#68892 - best comment on the bug: 'Not quite sure how the severity scales are generally used, but shouldn't a trivial command that breaks the one feature that is being splatted all over the homepage as having significant improvements be a little higher than "non-critical" ?'

What about stupid shit like this: http://www.darkreading.com/database/expect-a-surge-in-breaches-following-mys/240001958?cid=nl_DR_daily_2012-06-14_html&elq=7e0510c44883432fa8e79c2ebde2ecb8 [darkreading.com] "The vulnerability itself is in the way MySQL accepts passwords -- the bug makes it such that there's a one in 256 chance that the wrong password will still grant the user access to an account. So an endless loop of attempts will eventually grant an attacker access. It was a bug so unique that Moore says some MySQL developers ran into it, couldn't reproduce it ,and eventually chalked it up as a fluke."

Is MySQL even ACID compliant yet, without addons?

http://nosql.mypopescu.com/post/1085685966/mysql-is-not-acid-compliant [mypopescu.com]

Re:What about 10 year old mysql bugs? (2)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#44804465)

#1341. 10 fucking years old

Pffft, give Oracle time .. they can best it.

Re:What about 10 year old mysql bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804489)

With particular respect to #68892, I'm not surprised that MySQL has these huge replication problems with the terrible replication architecture they're chosen. This article [grimoire.ca] explains it better than I can.

Re:What about 10 year old mysql bugs? (4, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year ago | (#44804697)

I don't think it's possible for MySQL to get the "C" part in ACID right without a total rewrite, which seems unlikely under Oracle's watch. There used to be all sorts of trivial ways you could insert garbage data into MySQL, things like February 31 being a valid date or numbers going into boolean fields. They added this strict mode [mysql.com] as a way to add validation for most of that. But strict is a client setting. All it takes is one client that ignores this, and the engine will still let you put garbage into there--values that are not going to be valid if you later work on them using a strict setting client. If you can put data in one end of that's not correct when read by another client, that's the exact opposite of a "consistent" database. It boggles my mind that anyone finds this acceptable. I guess people who do all their validation on the client are fine with it maybe? I can't explain how people who don't understand databases at all make their decisions.

I don't follow MySQL closely enough to know if they're still silently truncating data sometimes too, but that's been a nagging problem over the years too. Strong validation of data is like security: you don't just bolt it on later. It's something that needs to be enforced in as many places as possible in the code, if you want any hope of getting it right and bug free. If you actually want data to be validated in all situations, you need to use something like PostgreSQL instead. There even new types you add to the database can execute any check constraint function you want before that data is allowed in, period. That overhead contributes to why MySQL is faster on trivial things, but sometimes you get what you pay for.

Re:What about 10 year old mysql bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804807)

My favorite bug to watch is #6773 - native Kerberos auth for users.

It's astounded me how a DB with no proper external authentication had ever gotten any traction. PAM support is 'commercial' now, absolutely pathetic.

Re:What about 10 year old mysql bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805203)

Has there in fact been a huge increase in breakins in the 15 months since that blog entry was posted? No? Then STFU.

The "Classic" = 2038 MySQL Bug... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804341)

"MySQL database's inbuilt functions like UNIX_TIMESTAMP() will return 0 after 03:14:07 UTC on 19 January 2038.[7]" from -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem [wikipedia.org]

* Just like 32-bit UNIX is - same 1970 UTC Clock "bug"...

(OR, it was one on UNIX variants @ least: Admittedly, not sure if those're fixed or not, or on what models/versions/vendors etc. - Like this one SHOULD or OUGHT to be for MySQL... afaik, it even happens in the 64-bit builds).

APK

P.S.=> That's one that definitely needs fixing... even if ONLY for the 64-bit (or better/larger memory addressing future builds)... apk

Re:The "Classic" = 2038 MySQL Bug... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804467)

The Year 2038 problem is well known, with various Unix implementations already solving it. Judging by the reports in the relevant Wikipedia article, it looks like there are 64 bit time_t implementations on the major open source Unices. The commercial Unices that actually matter (Solaris and AIX, maybe HP-UX?) probably have similar fixes in place but I’m too lazy to check. And nearly everyone doing database stuff is on a 64 bit CPU now, so it’s not much of an issue at this point. If you want to worry about time_t and Year 2038, I’d recommend concerning yourself with embedded systems, whatever ancient COBOL cruft refuses to still die, and all those interesting special-purpose systems running nuclear reactors and refineries and the like.

Re:The "Classic" = 2038 MySQL Bug... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804607)

Holy shit you're alive and people still haven't killed you!

Oracle "support" (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | about a year ago | (#44804391)

This is no surprise to anyone who makes Oracle support calls for a living.

Unless you bump up the severity to the highest level, you can expect months of wait and all-around handsitting.

Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804443)

Some may see this as a reason to use MariaDB instead of MySQL. Me, I see it as a reason to keep using DB2. Especially since Oracle can't tell the difference between an empty string and a NULL.

That's probably Larry's next step, to port that bit of brain-deadery to MySQL :-)

Let's wait and see (1)

stevez67 (2374822) | about a year ago | (#44804493)

how many additional performance bugs the rapidly deployed Maria patch opens before we pass judgement. Speed without adequate QA is useless and self-defeating.

'foo' is null is a user problem (1)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | about a year ago | (#44804633)

The optimizer is correct in making it run poorly, it is poor sql to begin with. If anything it should throw an error instead of accepting garbage.
If I saw you putting that in a project I would quickly fire you arse. Heck, I'd probably fire you for using mysql to begin with.

Re:'foo' is null is a user problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44804767)

I have a sneaking suspicious that the query is the result of a prepared statement, dealing with NULL and NON-NULL strings:

WHERE ? IS NULL
      OR ? = column_name

I think it's because (0)

kilodelta (843627) | about a year ago | (#44804667)

Oracle is trying to kill MySQL. It's sad - I loved it back in the day. Now not so much.

Oracle will have the patch when they buy MariaDB (2)

Macchendra (2919537) | about a year ago | (#44804679)

Do all the dedicated volunteers think their work won't be sold to Oracle? Also, they wouldn't want to break compatibility with this: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/migration/mysql-093223.html [oracle.com]

Re:Oracle will have the patch when they buy MariaD (3, Insightful)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year ago | (#44804799)

Yup, MariaDB is playing the same copyright assignment [mariadb.com] tricks that Monty used before, so that he could leverage community work yet still sell MySQL as a business. No reason to believe he's doing anything different this time. When the FSF asks for copyright assignment, that's acceptable because they have never breached the trust of their contributors. But when Monty does it, you have to assume he's setting things up so he can cash out again.

Is the title based on a tale of two sisters? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44805129)

It sounds like OP has a fetish for anime incest but what do I know? I'm an innocent lurker.

Its not really a bug (0)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#44805489)

Its just failure to optimise a statement that nobody in their right mind would write. Like saying a compiler has a bug if it can't optimise away "if (1 != 2)".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?