From: Christopher Powers Date: October 22 2008 10:57pm Subject: Re: Review request: Bug#40265 List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/falcon/93 Message-Id: <48FFAFED.5000100@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT 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=wlad@stripped > >