In a MySQL 5.7 master-slave setup that uses the default semisynchronous replication setting for rpl_semi_sync_master_wait_point, a crash of the master and failover to the slave is considered to be lossless. However, when the crashed master comes back, you may find that it has transactions that are not present in the current master (which was previously a slave). This behavior may be puzzling, given that semisynchronous replication is supposed to be lossless, but this is actually an expected behavior in MySQL. Why exactly this happens is explained in full detail in the …

GTID replication has made it convenient to setup and maintain MySQL replication. You need not worry about binary log file and position thanks to GTID and auto-positioning. However, things can go wrong when pointing a slave to a different master. Consider a situation where the new master has executed transactions that haven’t been executed on the old master. If the corresponding binary logs have been purged already, how do you point the slave to the new master?

The scenario

Based on technical requirements and architectural change, there is a need to point the slave to a different master by

1. Pointing it to another node in a PXC cluster
2. Pointing it to another master in master/master replication
3. Pointing it to another slave of a master
4. Pointing it to the slave of a slave of the master … and so on and so forth.

Theoretically, pointing to a new master with GTID …

In this blog post, we’ll look at how to navigate some of the complexities of multi-source GTID replication.

GTID replication is often a real challenge for DBAs, especially if this has to do with multi-source GTID replication. A while back, I came across a really interesting customer environment with shards where multi-master, multi-source, multi-threaded MySQL 5.6 MIXED replication was active. This is a highly complex environment that has both pros and cons, introducing risks as a trade-off for specific customer requirements.

This is the set up of part of this environment:

I started looking into this setup when a statement broke replication between db1 and db10. Replication broke due to a statement executed on a schema that was not present on db10. This also …

Say you have a cluster with 3 nodes using Percona XtraDB Cluster (PXC) 5.6 and one asynchronous replica connected to node1. If asynchronous replication is using GTIDs, moving the replica so that it is connected to node2 is trivial, right? Actually replication can easily break for reasons that may not be obvious at first sight.

Summary

Let’s assume we have the following setup with 3 PXC nodes and one asynchronous replica:

Regarding MySQL GTIDs, a Galera cluster behaves like a distributed master: transactions coming from any node will use the same auto-generated uuid. This auto-generated uuid is related to the Galera uuid, it’s neither ABC, nor DEF, nor GHI.

Transactions executed for …