On Sep 15, Weldon Whipple wrote:
> >> 2. FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK FOR DATABASE dbname;
> > This would be difficult to implement.
> > FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK is not implemented in a way that can be
> > generalized to support per-database locks :(
> I had guessed as much. (The method in my DB_BINLOG_MGR method that
> implements that functionality consists of a mutex lock, a comment
> about some sort of miracle happening, then a mutex unlock.)
> I wonder if there might be a way of inhibiting some user database
> (temporarily) from changing ...
Might be, but I cannot think of any :(
Were there a [more or less] easy way to do it, we would have got RENAME
DATABASE long time ago.