List:Internals« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Konstantin Osipov Date:June 24 2010 7:37am
Subject:Re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?
View as plain text  
* Baron Schwartz <baron@stripped> [10/06/24 11:35]:
> > - To allow easy file system level backups of the databases
> > - To prepare a database for a snapshot
> > - (Optional) Flush things to disk, so that a restart is faster.
> I have seen many people use it as a general-purpose write barrier.
> For example, in Alex Davies's new High Availability Cookbook, he
> suggests using it before SET GLOBAL read_only = 1, to be sure the
> change has really taken effect for all connections when performing a
> failover.

Starting from 5.0, a useless suggestion.
SET GLOBAL read_only is implemented by means of FTWRL.

-- 
Thread
Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?Konstantin Osipov21 Jun
  • re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?Michael Widenius22 Jun
    • Re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?Konstantin Osipov23 Jun
      • Re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?Michael Widenius24 Jun
    • Re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?Baron Schwartz24 Jun
      • Re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?Konstantin Osipov24 Jun
        • Re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?Baron Schwartz24 Jun
        • Re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?Rob Wultsch24 Jun
          • Re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?Konstantin Osipov24 Jun
            • Re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?Rob Wultsch24 Jun
  • Re: Should FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK wait for updating transactions?MARK CALLAGHAN23 Jun