BUG#43789 different master/slave table defs cause crash: text/varchar null

          vs not null

NOTE: Backporting the patch to next-mr.
                        
The replication was generating corrupted data, warning messages on Valgrind
and aborting on debug mode while replicating a "null" to "not null" field.
Specifically the unpack_row routine, was considering the slave's table
definition and trying to retrieve a field value, where there was nothing to be
retrieved, ignoring the fact that the value was defined as "null" by the master.
                        
To fix the problem, we proceed as follows:
                        
1 - If it is not STRICT sql_mode, implicit default values are used, regardless
if it is multi-row or single-row statement.
                        
2 - However, if it is STRICT mode, then a we do what follows:
                        
2.1 If it is a transactional engine, we do a rollback on the first NULL that is
to be set into a NOT NULL column and return an error.
                        
2.2 If it is a non-transactional engine and it is the first row to be inserted
with multi-row, we also return the error. Otherwise, we proceed with the
execution, use implicit default values and print out warning messages.
                  
Unfortunately, the current patch cannot mimic the behavior showed by the master
for updates on multi-tables and multi-row inserts. This happens because such
statements are unfolded in different row events. For instance, considering the
following updates and strict mode:
                  
(master)
create table t1 (a int);
create table t2 (a int not null);
insert into t1 values (1);
insert into t2 values (2);
update t1, t2 SET t1.a=10, t2.a=NULL;
                  
t1 would have (10) and t2 would have (0) as this would be handled as a
multi-row update. On the other hand, if we had the following updates:
                  
(master)
create table t1 (a int);
create table t2 (a int);
                  
(slave)
create table t1 (a int);
create table t2 (a int not null);
                  
(master)
insert into t1 values (1);
insert into t2 values (2);
update t1, t2 SET t1.a=10, t2.a=NULL;
                  
On the master t1 would have (10) and t2 would have (NULL). On
the slave, t1 would have (10) but the update on t1 would fail.

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions