List:Falcon Storage Engine« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Ann W. Harrison Date:November 5 2008 3:47pm
Subject:Re: Interaction of DDL and DML
View as plain text  
On the subject of drop table, truncate table, destructive alter table,
rename table, or restore of a backup with a running transaction that
has accessed the affected table...
> 
>>    Currently for both Falcon and InnoDB, a repeatable read
>> transaction's isolation is broken if a destructive alter table,
>> drop table, or truncate is executed by a concurrent transaction.

James Day wrote:

> Please see this bug and it's related worklog to see whether the work 
> planned to fix it resolves the problem. If it does, please let Omer know.
> 
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=989
> 
> https://intranet.mysql.com/worklog/Server-BackLog/?tid=4284

Yes, fixing that that venerable bug and completing the related
worklog will solve the concurrent DML/DDL problem for Falcon
Falcon, InnoDB, and other transactional engines.  The age and
resilience of the but (over five years and survived at least
one show-stopper tag) are  a concern.  Neither the
bug nor the worklog refers to the restore of a backup, which
should be included as a DDL operation, I guess.

Best,

Ann
Thread
Interaction of DDL and DMLAnn W. Harrison4 Nov
  • Re: Interaction of DDL and DMLJames Day5 Nov
    • Re: Interaction of DDL and DMLKevin Lewis5 Nov
      • Re: Interaction of DDL and DMLAnn W. Harrison5 Nov
    • Re: Interaction of DDL and DMLAnn W. Harrison5 Nov