List:Internals« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Weldon Whipple Date:October 27 2010 10:26pm
Subject:Re: How to lock individual tables in 1-db-per-file binlogging (Was:
View as plain text  
Dmitry,

Thank you very much for your response! (I apologize for the slowness
of my reply. I've been fighting a cold for several days.)

See below:

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Dmitry Lenev <Dmitry.Lenev@stripped> wrote:
> Hello Weldon!
>
> * Weldon Whipple <weldon@stripped> [10/10/20 00:26]:
>> Thanks for the great feedback. It got me looking at the capabilities
>> of MySQL 5.5.
>>
>> It's POSSIBLE that the new syntax:
>>
>> FLUSH TABLES t1, t2, t3, ... , tn WITH READ LOCK
>>
>> is PRECISELY the functionality we need!
>>
>> Our (perl) migration script MIGHT (for example) do the following:
>>
>> Issue the following command (implemented by me ...):
>>
>> 1. START BINLOG FOR DATABASE <db>;
>>
>> (for each database a given user owns. [Hmmm... Maybe my implementation
>> allows multiple <db> arguments. I need to check.] Each database would
>> start binlogging to its own file. [We will configure--in my.cnf--the
>> 1-database-per-file binlogs to be stored on a very fast solid-state
>> drive.])
>>
>> Then the script creates a list of all tables in all the user's
>> databases being migrated to another server and issues the command (new
>> to MySQL 5.5):
>>
>> 2. FLUSH TABLES t1, t2, t3, ..., tn WITH READ LOCK;
>>
>> (where the tables t1, t2, ..., tn are the tables being migrated.)
>>
>> Then issue the following command (implemented by me ...):
>
> AFAIU you also want to prohibit creation of tables in this database
> after this point as otherwise you can't guarantee binlog stability.
> Also what about non-table objects like stored routines - don't you
> want to block their modification as well? The above statement won't
> provide this as it locks only *existing* *tables*.
>
> OTOH in my opinion it should be fairly easy to implement functionality
> that you need (i.e. blocking of all DDL and DML that changes data in
> database) on the basis of FLUSH TABLES <table_list> WITH READ LOCK
> implementation. You just need to take database-scope S metadata lock
> in addition to locking and flushing all tables in database. Such lock
> will block creation of new tables and any DDL on stored routines in
> the database.

Maybe I need to implement a new command (something like FLUSH DATABASE
db WITH READ LOCK) that--conceptually, at least--read locks all the
tables in the database (like FLUSH TABLES ... WITH READ LOCK) *as well
as* blocks all DDL and DML that changes data in database.

I'll look through the code and find where FLUSH TABLES ... WITH READ
LOCK is implemented. If I can't figure out how to "take database-scope
S metadata lock," I'll get back with you...

(I suppose I'll need a corresponding UNLOCK DATABASES command as well.)

I've observed (and read) that the read locks are held as long as the
client connection remains open, and that the UNLOCK applies to all the
locks created during the same connection that created the read locks.
I guess that means that our migration tool will need to maintain the
connection with mysqld while it dumps (or scp's, in the case of MyISAM
tables) the database snapshot. (That shouldn't necessarily be a
problem--it's just something we need to be aware of. It makes sense
for it to work that way.)

>
>>
>> BUG IDENTIFIED.
>>
<snip/>

> I have taken the liberty to report this issue as bug #57649
> (http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=57649).
>
> Thanks for pointing it out!

Thanks for reporting it.

>
>>
>> QUESTION:
>> I read that Larry Ellison stated (at a conference) that 5.5 would be
>> out by year end. How likely is that? Our company generally waits for
>> some point releases before changing our customer boxes to the next
>> release.
>>
>> Should I try to back port those locks to 5.1 in the interim? ... or
>> leave well enough alone?
>
> I don't think it makes sense to backport metadata locks to 5.1 as it is
> likely to require back-porting of too much other changes from 5.5.
>
> OTOH implementing what you need on top of infrastructure already present
> in 5.1 is likely to require significant efforts as well.
>
> So I think it is better to base your work on 5.5 tree.

I agree. There are quite a few major changes in 5.5. I haven't noticed
meta-data-locks (MDL) before. The PSI additions to the mutex and
conditions also look new. (I'm sure I'm missing lots of other
changes.)

(Regarding the PSI_mutex_key, PSI_rwlock_key and similar additions:
I've tried to follow the patterns in 5.5 as I added my own mutexes.
I'm assuming [hoping?] that they work when multiple instances of an
object all refer to the same-named PSI_xxx-key ??? ...)

(Is there any externally available documentation on MySQL's use of PSI?)

>
> Best regards,
> --
> Dmitry Lenev, Software Developer
> Oracle Development SPB/MySQL, www.mysql.com
>
> Are you MySQL certified?  http://www.mysql.com/certification

Not that I know of.

Weldon Whipple
weldon@stripped
Thread
How to lock individual tables in 1-db-per-file binlogging (Was: Re:Per-db binlogging)Weldon Whipple18 Oct
  • Re: How to lock individual tables in 1-db-per-file binlogging (Was:Re: Per-db binlogging)Davi Arnaut18 Oct
    • Re: How to lock individual tables in 1-db-per-file binlogging (Was:Re: Per-db binlogging)Weldon Whipple18 Oct
    • Re: How to lock individual tables in 1-db-per-file binlogging (Was:Re: Per-db binlogging)Weldon Whipple19 Oct
      • Re: How to lock individual tables in 1-db-per-file binlogging(Was: Re: Per-db binlogging)Dmitry Lenev22 Oct
        • Re: How to lock individual tables in 1-db-per-file binlogging (Was:Re: Per-db binlogging)Weldon Whipple28 Oct
          • Re: How to lock individual tables in 1-db-per-file binlogging (Was: Re: Per-db binlogging)Mark Leith28 Oct
            • Re: How to lock individual tables in 1-db-per-file binlogging (Was:Re: Per-db binlogging)Weldon Whipple29 Oct