A followup on show_compatibility_56

Giuseppe and Shlomi both blogged on one of the recent changes introduced to MySQL 5.7.8-rc, where the setting show_compatibility_56 is now set OFF by default.

Both raise very good points. Here is how we plan to address them:

  1. The permissions issue reported by Giuseppe will be fixed.
  2. When selecting from information_schema tables in show_compatibility_56=OFF mode, an error will now be produced:

    mysql> select * from information_schema.global_variables;
    ERROR 3167 (HY000): The 'INFORMATION_SCHEMA.GLOBAL_VARIABLES' feature is disabled; see the documentation for 'show_compatibility_56'

    (Previously this was a warning + empty set returned)
  3. When show_compatibility_56=ON, users will now be able to select from either information_schema or performance_schema tables. This presents a more viable upgrade path for users that need some period to transition.

The show_compatibility_56 setting itself will remain deprecated, as it was from its introduction. This signifies that we intend to remove INFORMATION_SCHEMA.GLOBAL_VARIABLES in a future release.

Outside of the scope of today's update, my colleague Mark Leith has also volunteered to blog with examples of how the new performance_schema tables now expose variables down to the thread-level. This will add more context as to why we are moving this meta data from information_schema to performance_schema. Thanks Mark!

So thank you again to Giuseppe and Shlomi for helping make a better MySQL. We're delighted to incorporate your feedback!

Proposal to extend binary operators in MySQL

In order to make it easier to work with data stored as binary strings (BINARY/VARBINARY) we are considering extending the &,|,^,~,<<,>> operators, to accept any-size binary strings and return binary string data as response. This can be useful for several complex data types not covered by the basic SQL data types (e.g. working with IPV6 addresses, manipulating UUID, etc).


Let's say we're interested in getting all the networks that contain the given IP address. With ipv4 the common practice is to store the IP addresses as INT and execute:

SELECT inet_ntoa(network) AS network, inet_ntoa(netmask) AS netmask FROM network_table WHERE (inet_aton('') & netmask) = network;

At the moment you are not able to do the same with ipv6 because inet6_aton('2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334') & netmask converts both operands from VARBINARY to BIGINT resulting in data truncation and when the & operation gets executed, the result is incorrect. But, if the & operator could have worked directly on BINARY/VARBINARY data, this would have been possible:

SELECT inet6_ntoa(network) AS network, inet6_ntoa(netmask) AS netmask FROM network_table WHERE (inet6_aton('2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334') & netmask) = network;

The SQL standard does not define bitwise operations over any-size binary string data but it does define binary string comparison:

All binary string values are comparable. When binary large object string values are compared, they shall have exactly the same length (in octets) to be considered equal. Binary large object string values can be compared only for equality. For binary string values other than binary large object string values, it is implementation-defined whether trailing X'00's are considered significant when comparing two binary string values that are otherwise equivalent.

Thus, the standard allows binary strings to be zero-padded in the least significant part for comparisons (right-side). If you're interpreting binary data as a hexadecimal unsigned integer, you would expect the operand with smaller size to be zero-padded to the left side. So an easy approach to avoid confusion would be to allow the operators(^,&,|) to only work with same size operands, thus avoiding any confusion over whether padding occurs in most or least significant part.

Another aspect to be mentioned is that the old behavior with INT arguments would be preserved. Example SELECT 23 & 4 would still return a numeric BIGINT response: 4.

MySQL has two ways of representing hexadecimal string literals: x'val' and 0xval (where val contains hexadecimal digits 0-9, a-f, A-F). The difference between the two is that the first is SQL standard and has a constraint: the number of hexadecimal digits must be even, the second version is not standard and does not require an even number of characters (it will be zero-padded on the left side in case of even number of characters). But there is one issue, in numeric contexts, hexadecimal values act like integers (64-bit precision) and in string contexts, they act like binary strings. So currently when executing SELECT x'10000001' & x'00000001' the operands get converted from VARBINARY to BIGINT(int64), with loss of any parts beyond 64 bits, and this returns BIGINT; with our change, this would return BINARY(4), breaking existing applications. That's something that can be solved with a new sql_mode named BINARY_BIT_OPS_YIELD_BINARY, off by default for backward-compatibility; if turned on, bit operation on binary strings will yield BINARY result (or an error if operators are not of the same size).

The alternative would be to introduce new functions. Example bin_and(x,y), bin_or(x,y), bin_xor(x,y) that can take two binary string arguments of same length and return binary string. We are considering also other names like binary_and(x,y), binary_or(x,y), binary_xor(x,y).


  • No compatibility issues
  • Bitwise operators (&, |, ^) would remain operators that yield integer results (preserving existing functionality), whereas the new functions would yield binary string results


  • It's longer to type bin_and()/binary_and() than &
  • This creates new syntax for users to learn
  • bit_and(x) already exists, it's an aggregate function; we fear this could confuse users, though, fortunately both functions do a similar thing (they AND bits).

Please let us know in a comment below what are your opinions on this:

  • Is it a good idea to implement bitwise operations for binary strings?
  • Is the BINARY_BIT_OPS_YIELD_BINARY sql_mode necessary?
  • Can you think of other use cases where this can be useful (UUID handling is one such case)?

Thanks to Catalin Besleaga on the optimizer team for ghost writing this post.

MySQL 5.7.8 - mysqlpump caveat

MySQL 5.7.8-rc2 was released today, and features a new server utility called mysqlpump. This utility contains a number of major improvements over mysqldump including:

  • Parallel processing of databases, and of objects within databases, to speed up the dump process
  • For dump file reloading, faster secondary index creation for InnoDB tables by adding indexes after rows are inserted
  • Better control over which databases and database objects (tables, views, stored programs, user accounts) to dump
  • Dumping of user accounts as account-management statements (CREATE USER, GRANT) rather than as inserts into the mysql system database
  • Capability of creating compressed output
  • Progress indicator

What I wanted to caution however, is that mysqlpump is not currently consistent. That is to say that currently each of the dump threads lack a synchronization point before they start backing up the data. This makes it currently unsafe as a general purpose backup replacement.

The mysqlpump developers are aware of this limitation, and are busy adding this feature into the utility.

Edit: This functionality was added to MySQL 5.7.11.