Use char(32) for checksums instead of bigint unsigned#202
Open
koleo wants to merge 1 commit intobox:developfrom
Open
Use char(32) for checksums instead of bigint unsigned#202koleo wants to merge 1 commit intobox:developfrom
koleo wants to merge 1 commit intobox:developfrom
Conversation
pt-query-digest 3.0.11+)
|
Verified that @koleo has signed the CLA. Thanks for the pull request! |
|
Nicolas Payart seems not to be a GitHub user. You need a GitHub account to be able to sign the CLA. If you have already a GitHub account, please add the email address used for this commit to your account. You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Starting from Percona Toolkit 3.0.11, the checksum function has been updated to use char(32) datatype in the checksum field, against bigint unsigned actually.
Other Pull Requests (#201) submitted the same change, but in an incomplete way and with errors.
This one has been tested and is valid (to the extent of my tests).