Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

executor: fix the returned field count of the prepare statement (#30981) #30993

Closed

Conversation

ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor

@ti-srebot ti-srebot commented Dec 24, 2021

cherry-pick #30981 to release-5.2
You can switch your code base to this Pull Request by using git-extras:

# In tidb repo:
git pr https://github.com/pingcap/tidb/pull/30993

After apply modifications, you can push your change to this PR via:

git push git@github.com:ti-srebot/tidb.git pr/30993:release-5.2-404895c04a51

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #30971

Problem Summary:

What is changed and how it works?

Return the correct fields count for the prepare statement...
The old code only consider the 'select' statement and ignore all the other cases.
And 'select ... union select ...' is a counter-example trigger the bug.

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

Side effects

  • Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
  • Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
  • Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

  • Affects user behaviors
  • Contains syntax changes
  • Contains variable changes
  • Contains experimental features
  • Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Fix a bug that the `mysql_stmt_field_count` returned to mysql client is incorrect in prepare protocal when handling union statement.

Signed-off-by: ti-srebot <ti-srebot@pingcap.com>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has not been approved.

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor Author

/run-all-tests

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. and removed do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels Dec 24, 2021
@ti-srebot ti-srebot added size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. type/5.2-cherry-pick labels Dec 24, 2021
@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tiancaiamao you're already a collaborator in bot's repo.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Dec 24, 2021
@VelocityLight VelocityLight added cherry-pick-approved Cherry pick PR approved by release team. and removed do-not-merge/cherry-pick-not-approved labels Feb 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cherry-pick-approved Cherry pick PR approved by release team. release-note Denotes a PR that will be considered when it comes time to generate release notes. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. type/5.2-cherry-pick
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants