Vladislav Vaintroub wrote:
> Chris,
>
> It is out-of topic, but are we really-really sure our phase1 should not be
> called phase2?
I think you have a point, Vlad. alter_table_phase1() is intended for the
preparation and phase2 is the delete. Both handle errors in the same way.
> It looks for me, like what we think of phase1 and phase2 is not what server
> thinks of it.
> It should not make much difference right now, but maybe in the future.
>
> We do everything in a phase1, which server calls "prepare".
> And we do nothing in phase2, where server thinks we would "perform the
> online ALTER".
>
> In sql_table.cc
> ...
> /* Tell the storage engine to prepare for the online ALTER. */
> if (table->file->alter_table_phase1(thd, altered_table,
> create_info, alter_info,
> ha_alter_flags))
> DBUG_RETURN(1);
>
> /*
> Tell the storage engine to perform the online ALTER.
> @todo If check_if_supported_alter() returns
> HA_ALTER_SUPPORTED_WAIT_LOCK we need to wrap the next call
> with a DDL lock.
> */
> if (table->file->alter_table_phase2(thd, altered_table,
> create_info, alter_info,
> ha_alter_flags))
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher.Powers@stripped [mailto:Christopher.Powers@stripped]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:54 PM
>> To: falcon@stripped
>> Subject: Review request: Bug#40265 "Falcon: Concurrent online DROP
>> INDEX of the same key"
>>
>> http://lists.mysql.com/commits/56846
>>
>> See the bug for details: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=40265
>>
>> --
>> Falcon Storage Engine Mailing List
>> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/falcon
>> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/falcon?unsub=1
>
>
