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.
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.