# Testing various forms of idempotency for replication that should
# work the same way under statement based as under row based.

source include/master-slave.inc;

# Add suppression for expected warning(s) in slaves error log
call mtr.add_suppression("Slave SQL.*Can.t find record in .t[12].* Error_code: 1032");
call mtr.add_suppression("Slave SQL.*Cannot delete or update a parent row: a foreign key constraint fails .* Error_code: 1451");
call mtr.add_suppression("Slave SQL.*Cannot add or update a child row: a foreign key constraint fails .* Error_code: 1452");
call mtr.add_suppression("Slave SQL.*Could not execute Write_rows event on table test.* Duplicate entry .1. for key .PRIMARY.* Error_code: 1062");

connection master;
CREATE TABLE t1 (a INT PRIMARY KEY);
CREATE TABLE t2 (a INT);
INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (-1),(-2),(-3);
INSERT INTO t2 VALUES (-1),(-2),(-3);
sync_slave_with_master;

SET @old_slave_exec_mode= @@global.slave_exec_mode;
SET @@global.slave_exec_mode= IDEMPOTENT;

# A delete for a row that does not exist, the statement is
# deliberately written to be idempotent for statement-based
# replication as well. We test this towards both a table with a
# primary key and without a primary key.

connection slave;
DELETE FROM t1 WHERE a = -2;
DELETE FROM t2 WHERE a = -2;
connection master;
DELETE FROM t1 WHERE a = -2;
DELETE FROM t2 WHERE a = -2;
SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY a;
SELECT * FROM t2 ORDER BY a;
sync_slave_with_master;
SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY a;
SELECT * FROM t2 ORDER BY a;
--source include/check_slave_no_error.inc

# An insert of a row that already exists. Since we are replacing the
# row if it already exists, the most apropriate representation is
# INSERT IGNORE. We only test this towards a table with a primary key,
# since the other case does not make sense.

INSERT IGNORE INTO t1 VALUES (-2);
connection master;
INSERT IGNORE INTO t1 VALUES (-2);
SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY a;
sync_slave_with_master;
SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY a;
--source include/check_slave_no_error.inc


# BUG#19958: RBR idempotency issue for UPDATE and DELETE

# Statement-based and row-based replication have different behaviour
# when updating a row with an explicit WHERE-clause that matches
# exactly one row (or no row at all). For statement-based replication,
# the statement is idempotent since the first time it is executed, it
# will update exactly one row, and the second time it will not update
# any row at all.  This was not the case for row-based replication, so
# we test under both row-based and statement-based replication both
# for tables with and without primary keys.

connection slave;
UPDATE t1 SET a = 1 WHERE a = -1;
UPDATE t2 SET a = 1 WHERE a = -1;
connection master;
UPDATE t1 SET a = 1 WHERE a = -1;
UPDATE t2 SET a = 1 WHERE a = -1;
SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY a;
SELECT * FROM t2 ORDER BY a;
sync_slave_with_master;
SELECT * FROM t1 ORDER BY a;
SELECT * FROM t2 ORDER BY a;
--source include/check_slave_no_error.inc

connection master;
DROP TABLE t1, t2;
sync_slave_with_master;

SET @@global.slave_exec_mode= @old_slave_exec_mode;

--source include/rpl_end.inc