List:Internals« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Ingo Strüwing Date:December 11 2007 8:20am
Subject:Re: Proposal for a Test Synchronization Facility
View as plain text  
Hi Martin,

Martin Friebe, 10.12.2007 21:34:
...
> Just a thought, something very similar can be archived using named-locks
> "get_lock('name', timeout)".
...
> The advantage is that no changes to the server are needed. So it culd be
> used with current GA servers immediately.

Yes, I agree. However there is a remarkable difference between
get_lock() and my test synchronization facility.

If I do not miss something important, then I can use get_lock() and
friends to force statements of multiple threads to execute in a
pre-determined order. This can be used for a wide class of
synchronization problems.

What my facility aims for is to force execution of a statement while
another thread is at a certain point of execution _within_ another
statement. Say thread1 shall FLUSH t1 while thread2 started an INSERT
INTO t1, opened t1, but did not yet lock t1. Can this be achieved with
get_lock() and friends?

However, I have been informed that my facility or similar does already
exist. For the new online backup (6.0) it has been implemented already.
However, I guess, it is not publicly available yet.

Regards
Ingo
-- 
Ingo Strüwing, Senior Software Developer
MySQL GmbH, Dachauer Str. 37, D-80335 München
Geschäftsführer: Kaj Arnö - HRB München 162140
Thread
Proposal for a Test Synchronization FacilityIngo Strüwing10 Dec
  • Re: Proposal for a Test Synchronization FacilityMartin Friebe10 Dec
    • Re: Proposal for a Test Synchronization FacilityIngo Strüwing11 Dec
      • Re: Proposal for a Test Synchronization FacilityMartin Friebe11 Dec
Re: Proposal for a Test Synchronization FacilityIngo Strüwing11 Dec