17.19 InnoDB and MySQL Replication (original) (raw)

It is possible to use replication in a way where the storage engine on the replica is not the same as the storage engine on the source. For example, you can replicate modifications to anInnoDB table on the source to aMyISAM table on the replica. For more information see, Section 19.4.4, “Using Replication with Different Source and Replica Storage Engines”.

For information about setting up a replica, seeSection 19.1.2.6, “Setting Up Replicas”, andSection 19.1.2.5, “Choosing a Method for Data Snapshots”. To make a new replica without taking down the source or an existing replica, use theMySQL Enterprise Backup product.

Transactions that fail on the source do not affect replication. MySQL replication is based on the binary log where MySQL writes SQL statements that modify data. A transaction that fails (for example, because of a foreign key violation, or because it is rolled back) is not written to the binary log, so it is not sent to replicas. SeeSection 15.3.1, “START TRANSACTION, COMMIT, and ROLLBACK Statements”.

Replication and CASCADE. Cascading actions for InnoDB tables on the source are executed on the replica only if the tables sharing the foreign key relation useInnoDB on both the source and replica. This is true whether you are using statement-based or row-based replication. Suppose that you have started replication, and then create two tables on the source, where InnoDB is defined as the default storage engine, using the followingCREATE TABLE statements:

CREATE TABLE fc1 (
    i INT PRIMARY KEY,
    j INT
);

CREATE TABLE fc2 (
    m INT PRIMARY KEY,
    n INT,
    FOREIGN KEY ni (n) REFERENCES fc1 (i)
        ON DELETE CASCADE
);

If the replica has MyISAM defined as the default storage engine, the same tables are created on the replica, but they use the MyISAM storage engine, and theFOREIGN KEY option is ignored. Now we insert some rows into the tables on the source:

source> INSERT INTO fc1 VALUES (1, 1), (2, 2);
Query OK, 2 rows affected (0.09 sec)
Records: 2  Duplicates: 0  Warnings: 0

source> INSERT INTO fc2 VALUES (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 1);
Query OK, 3 rows affected (0.19 sec)
Records: 3  Duplicates: 0  Warnings: 0

At this point, on both the source and the replica, tablefc1 contains 2 rows, and tablefc2 contains 3 rows, as shown here:

source> SELECT * FROM fc1;
+---+------+
| i | j    |
+---+------+
| 1 |    1 |
| 2 |    2 |
+---+------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)

source> SELECT * FROM fc2;
+---+------+
| m | n    |
+---+------+
| 1 |    1 |
| 2 |    2 |
| 3 |    1 |
+---+------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)

replica> SELECT * FROM fc1;
+---+------+
| i | j    |
+---+------+
| 1 |    1 |
| 2 |    2 |
+---+------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)

replica> SELECT * FROM fc2;
+---+------+
| m | n    |
+---+------+
| 1 |    1 |
| 2 |    2 |
| 3 |    1 |
+---+------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)

Now suppose that you perform the followingDELETE statement on the source:

source> DELETE FROM fc1 WHERE i=1;
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.09 sec)

Due to the cascade, table fc2 on the source now contains only 1 row:

source> SELECT * FROM fc2;
+---+---+
| m | n |
+---+---+
| 2 | 2 |
+---+---+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

However, the cascade does not propagate on the replica because on the replica the DELETE forfc1 deletes no rows from fc2. The replica's copy of fc2 still contains all of the rows that were originally inserted:

replica> SELECT * FROM fc2;
+---+---+
| m | n |
+---+---+
| 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 |
+---+---+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)

This difference is due to the fact that the cascading deletes are handled internally by the InnoDB storage engine, which means that none of the changes are logged.