tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post1802146491403495514..comments2024-03-29T08:14:29.447+01:00Comments on Karlsson on databases and stuff: MySQL 5.5.7 - Can we trust it being RC, or?Karlssonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04874338187076980133noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-2712577386155379392010-11-12T00:39:41.255+01:002010-11-12T00:39:41.255+01:00While I generally agree with Davi (from the engine...While I generally agree with Davi (from the engineering point of view), exactly this case with pluggable authentication is different in my point of view.<br /><br />It affects the Client/Server protocol, which is or should be sacred, and as long as changes are not documented for the public here <br />http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/MySQL_Internals_ClientServer_Protocol <br />or there are notable bugs in the protocol implementation (like this one http://bugs.mysql.com/57442)<br />it should have not made it to the release.<br /><br />I'd also prefer if the network protocol stayed compatible, for MySQL and forks, and that includes pluggable authentication of course.<br />Otherwise it would be hard, if at all possible to write a client that works for different incarnations of MySQL.wladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14657227220070201326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-42081843495968096822010-11-11T20:51:59.364+01:002010-11-11T20:51:59.364+01:00Sheeri!
Yes, I too would rather have major fea...Sheeri!<br /><br /> Yes, I too would rather have major features in RC rather than GA. On the other hand, I'd much rather have them in Alpha possibly Beta. And in this case, I'd rather be open about and say this really is Beta. But maybe that's just me. But if we accept that we can introduce major changes to a release just about anywhere in the release cycle, what is the difference between Alpha, Beta etc.<br /><br /> Also, the real problem is that there is just too much time between GA releases, and it seems we can agree on that. And that makes features slower to end of in a GA release for sure. But in my mind, the solution to that particular problem is not to have new features in just about any release, rather, it the solution must be to have fewer incremental GA releases.<br /><br /> In this particular case also, we are talking about some rather core features. And Guiseppe has already pointed out, there are already flaws with this, and this is the second RC!<br /><br />/KarlssonKarlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04874338187076980133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-1447263383898541162010-11-11T18:33:37.449+01:002010-11-11T18:33:37.449+01:00I, for one, hope that we get lots of large unstabl...I, for one, hope that we get lots of large unstable features in GA. It will help sell support contracts and make my life more interesting.Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05318054903467929570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-2040158695119287732010-11-11T18:13:54.271+01:002010-11-11T18:13:54.271+01:00Would you rather they put it post-GA?
I understan...Would you rather they put it post-GA?<br /><br />I understand your concern, I'm just not sure how I feel about it, because if new features should be beta tested, then we'd have to wait a *while* for 5.6 to be beta'd with pluggable authentication.<br /><br />And one of the biggest complaints about MySQL in the past was that features that were release-ready had to wait (the most public example is Jeremy Cole's SHOW PROFILE/SHOW PROFILES feature, which had to wait years to get into the codebase).<br /><br />I worry about major changes in general. And I'd rather them put a major change in an RC than in a post-GA version.Sheeri K. Cabralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990877688502800403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-30534441768626125212010-11-11T17:23:06.142+01:002010-11-11T17:23:06.142+01:00Karlsson,
Whether it is introduced earlier or lat...Karlsson,<br /><br />Whether it is introduced earlier or late, or one year ago or next week, is not of much relevance. What actually matters is the stability of the code. As a engineer, I prefer to approach this kind of decisions from a technical point of view. One can look at the code and debate risks, perform QA, etc. According to our development cycle, it can go in almost at any time as long as it is stable (which does not mean bug free). Again, our release candidate are just signaling work towards a release. It is not the beta, alpha, etc process.<br /><br />We are stuck with two versions of InnoDB in 5.1 because the plugin stability level wasn't tied to the server and both were incompatible. I haven't seen users complaining about that as long as this is explained. Having options in this case is not a bad thing.Davi Arnauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09313791000614068026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-82505997460967747852010-11-11T16:36:08.140+01:002010-11-11T16:36:08.140+01:00I fully agree! See Bug #58139I fully agree! See <a href="http://bugs.mysql.com/58139" rel="nofollow">Bug #58139</a>Giuseppe Maxiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15801583338057324813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-35678104140754089312010-11-11T13:01:14.121+01:002010-11-11T13:01:14.121+01:00Right, our version was added at the alpha step. An...Right, our version was added at the alpha step. And MySQL implementation, although based on ours, was significantly modified (for example, according to bugdb, new bugs were introduced, that weren't part of the original implementation).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-24283311883428876222010-11-11T12:00:47.104+01:002010-11-11T12:00:47.104+01:00I just do not think that introducing new features ...I just do not think that introducing new features and reengineering in the midst of an RC cycle helps. If MariaDB folks want to do that, that is their call, but I don't think that is serious either, but they didn't do it in the middle of the cycle at least.<br /><br />As for just moving the same code from the server to a plugin makes you wonder my MySQL stuck with two different InnoDBs in 5.1, both of them GA then.<br /><br />And for this just being the same old code converted to a plugin, well on top of that, we sure have the authentication API itself, right? And by the way, this is apparently not just the "old" authentication code, there is the Proxy capability and the new client side options.<br /><br />/KarlssonKarlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04874338187076980133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-6084259295513827772010-11-11T11:29:30.054+01:002010-11-11T11:29:30.054+01:00Mind you, this is the same authentication function...Mind you, this is the same authentication functionality that used to be part of MySQL from early on, just converted into a plugin.<br /><br />The pluggable authentication code has been part of MariaDB since version 5.2.0, released in April. They just declared 5.2.3 stable today. So it's OK for them to include it, but not for Oracle/MySQL?LenZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00319249049857669149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-60568900979605862162010-11-11T09:14:50.753+01:002010-11-11T09:14:50.753+01:00Davi!
Three questions / issues then:
1) This...Davi!<br /><br /> Three questions / issues then:<br /><br />1) This change is very core to the server, as it deals with security, which makes it a bit scary, at least to me.<br /><br />2) This change entails not only additions to the server (which is pretty much OK I guess), but also major changes to core code. I.e. the existing authentication (which is NOT in a plugin) has been "Reimplemented [...] as plugins". Which all in all means that important things (authentication) which is NOT in a plugin has been changed.<br /><br />3) Not only has things been added through a plugin, which, again, should be OK, but the Plugin API in itself has been added mid-RC. And really, adding a Plugin-API is beyond just adding a Plugin to an existing API.<br /><br />/KarlssonKarlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04874338187076980133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-89383184697018417702010-11-11T00:58:39.239+01:002010-11-11T00:58:39.239+01:00> Linus doesn't push remove the experimenta...> Linus doesn't push remove the experimental label on section between RC builds.<br /><br />BTW, yes, he does. I've seen him merge removal of the experimental tag even in a rc8. What matters is the actual stability of the code, not whether it is declared early or late in the RC cycle. Otherwise, its just a oversimplification. What matters is the real stability, not when it is declared/merge, right?Davi Arnauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09313791000614068026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-57094570501126427482010-11-11T00:47:07.003+01:002010-11-11T00:47:07.003+01:00Water,
Which part of the process causes concerns ...Water,<br /><br />Which part of the process causes concerns to you? Note that the development cycle does not allow what you suggested either.Davi Arnauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09313791000614068026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-17761728581966019032010-11-11T00:39:22.354+01:002010-11-11T00:39:22.354+01:00Davi, Linux doesn't work that way. There are p...Davi, Linux doesn't work that way. There are parts of the kernel that are marked as experimental, sure. But the decision as to what is going to be at what stability level designation is decided well before the final release. Linus doesn't push remove the experimental label on section between RC builds. Its not that mysql has different levels of stability that concerns Kalsson ( and myself), its the process of doing it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16957222317299096782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-40505274664447947042010-11-11T00:38:24.507+01:002010-11-11T00:38:24.507+01:00Also, some relevant links.
The new development cy...Also, some relevant links.<br /><br />The new development cycle:<br /><br />http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/Development_Cycle<br /><br />WL#1054: Pluggable authentication support<br /><br />http://forge.mysql.com/worklog/task.php?id=1054Davi Arnauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09313791000614068026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9144505959002328789.post-53801969267367017942010-11-11T00:23:02.833+01:002010-11-11T00:23:02.833+01:00Karlsson,
It is and has been for quite some time ...Karlsson,<br /><br />It is and has been for quite some time that all parts of MySQL are not at the same level of stability. More specifically, pluggable parts of the server can be at different levels of stability. This allows us to drive towards "faster" release cycles without delays imposed by features which are used only by a minority of the users and which will also not affect the majority. For example, a unstable storage engine will in no way affect you if you don't use it.<br /><br />For example, you can look at the Linux kernel, which in a similar manner to MySQL, has dozens of different subsystems and modules. Not all of them are at the same level of stability, yet this doesn't preclude a stable release. A modular design allows one to declare the stability of core (essential) parts and work towards a release.<br /><br />MySQL should be able to introduce features even in a GA release in case it does not affect the other parts of the server.<br /><br />As for pluggable authentication, it has been in the works for quite some time. Yet, I suspect you won't be able get much out of it without coming up first with a plugin :-)Davi Arnauthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09313791000614068026noreply@blogger.com