Percona XtraBackup moved to https://jira.percona.com/projects/PXB

Merge lp://qastaging/~akopytov/percona-xtrabackup/basic-56-support-2.0 into lp://qastaging/percona-xtrabackup/2.0

basic-56-support-2.0
Merge into 2.0

Proposed by Alexey Kopytov on 2013-03-12

Status:	Merged
Merged at revision:	517
Proposed branch:	lp://qastaging/~akopytov/percona-xtrabackup/basic-56-support-2.0
Merge into:	lp://qastaging/percona-xtrabackup/2.0
Prerequisite:	lp://qastaging/~laurynas-biveinis/percona-xtrabackup/BT-28340-2.0
Diff against target:	346 lines (+66/-30) 12 files modified doc/source/xtrabackup_bin/choosing_binary.rst (+12/-8) innobackupex (+7/-1) src/Makefile (+1/-1) test/bootstrap.sh (+10/-0) test/testrun.sh (+4/-4) utils/build-binary.sh (+3/-0) utils/build.sh (+15/-15) utils/debian-dummy-rules.patch (+5/-1) utils/debian/percona-xtrabackup.install (+1/-0) utils/debian/percona-xtrabackup.lintian-overrides (+1/-0) utils/debian/rules (+3/-0) utils/xtrabackup.spec (+4/-0)
To merge this branch:	bzr merge lp://qastaging/~akopytov/percona-xtrabackup/basic-56-support-2.0
Related bugs:	Link a bug report
Related blueprints:	Basic 5.6 support (Essential)

Reviewer	Review Type	Date Requested	Status
Sergei Glushchenko (community)	g2	2013-03-12	Needs Information on 2013-03-12
Review via email: mp+152847@code.qastaging.launchpad.net

Description of the change

Basic 5.6 support:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/percona-xtrabackup/+spec/basic-56-support

    Implement basic support for all 5.6-based branches (i.e. MySQL 5.6,
    Percona Server 5.6 and MariaDB 10.0). Basic support means those versions
    are recognized by XtraBackup, and backup/restore works as long as no
    5.6-specific features are used (such as GTID, remote/transportable
    tablespaces, separate undo tablespace, 5.6-style buffer pool dump
    files).

    Full support will be the goal of
    https://blueprints.launchpad.net/percona-xtrabackup/+spec/mysql-56-support
    and its dependencies.

Revision history for this message

Alexey Kopytov (akopytov) wrote on 2013-03-12:

http://jenkins.percona.com/view/XtraBackup/job/percona-xtrabackup-2.0-param/377/

All xtradb56 failures are due to the server packaging bug #1153950.
All centos6-32 failures are due to ENOSPC.
The debian6-64/innodb51(release) failure is due to a Java exception.
There's a couple of other sporadic failures due to the server being killed unexpectedly. Which looks very much like #1096584. Not sure if that's because it was not fixed completely, or there were concurrent builds with older branches without that fix.

Revision history for this message

Sergei Glushchenko (sergei.glushchenko) wrote on 2013-03-12:

I have two questions actually

   * do we provide (or have a plan to provide) xtrabackup for windows?
     will it be single all-flavors-in-one xtrabackup.exe binary?
     I'm talking about code like ($win eq 1 ? 'xtrabackup.exe' : 'xtrabackup_NN')
   * was the packaging tested also, i.e. packages being built and installed?
     do we have Jenkins jobs for it?

Everything looks good, but I'm not an expert in packaging and not sure about that part.

review: Needs Information (g2)

Revision history for this message

Sergei Glushchenko (sergei.glushchenko) wrote on 2013-03-12:

Also as workaround of bug #1153950 we could test xtrabackup_56 against upstream MySQL 5.6 for now, or even until Percona Server reach GA

Revision history for this message

Sergei Glushchenko (sergei.glushchenko) wrote on 2013-03-12:

Do we have 2.1 version of MP?

Revision history for this message

Alexey Kopytov (akopytov) wrote on 2013-03-13:

Hi Sergei,

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:03:39 -0000, Sergei Glushchenko wrote:
> Review: Needs Information g2
>
> I have two questions actually
>
> * do we provide (or have a plan to provide) xtrabackup for windows?
> will it be single all-flavors-in-one xtrabackup.exe binary?
> I'm talking about code like ($win eq 1 ? 'xtrabackup.exe' : 'xtrabackup_NN')

No, no windows support anytime soon. That 'xtrabackup.exe' can safely be
thrown away, but I'm keeping it just for consistency. On the other hand,
there's a long-term plan to maintain only one xtrabackup binary, so
there will be no xtrabackup_*. In which case, this case will become
valid again.

> * was the packaging tested also, i.e. packages being built and installed?
> do we have Jenkins jobs for it?
>

I believe we do have some Jenkins job to build packages, but AFAIK there
are no tests that validate them in any way.

> Everything looks good, but I'm not an expert in packaging and not sure about that part.
>

I just walked through all packaging code referencing xtrabackup_55 and
added the same code adding xtrabackup_56. So it should be packaged in
the same way as xtrabackup_55.

Revision history for this message

Alexey Kopytov (akopytov) wrote on 2013-03-13:

Hi Sergei,

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:07:22 -0000, Sergei Glushchenko wrote:
> Do we have 2.1 version of MP?
>

No, there's no 2.1 version, because there is no innodb56.patch version
for 2.1 yet. Which means our XB branches will not be fully merged until
that change is implemented. Which is not a big deal, GCA branches should
work just fine (and I made sure to merge as much as possible to both 2.0
and 2.1 before MPing this one, so that GCA is not far behind).

Revision history for this message

Alexey Kopytov (akopytov) wrote on 2013-03-13:

Hi Sergei,

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:04:26 -0000, Sergei Glushchenko wrote:
> Also as workaround of bug #1153950 we could test xtrabackup_56 against upstream MySQL 5.6 for now, or even until Percona Server reach GA
>

We do test it against upstream 5.6 as well (there's innodb56).