List:Falcon Storage Engine« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Xuekun Hu Date:December 5 2008 3:19am
Subject:RE: Bug 41194
View as plain text  
Hi, Ann & Kevin

Thanks for replying. However I can't explain the below example:

I used dbt2 dataset. First I used gdb attached to mysqld to break "Transaction::waitForTransaction()".

Second I used two transactions to do each of below 

	mysql -e "update dbt2.item set i_name='adf' where i_im_id=1;" &
	mysql -e "update dbt2.item set i_name='gfg' where i_im_id=2;" &

Then I found mysqld is stopped at Transaction::waitForTransaction which means the two transactions have update conflict. I can't explain how the two transactions are thought as a potential update conflict. And actually I can't find an example which two transactions are updating one table which will not be blocked. 

Sorry for my cavil. :-) Your comments are appreciated. 

Thx, Xuekun

-----Original Message-----
From: Ann.Harrison@stripped [mailto:Ann.Harrison@Sun.COM] On Behalf Of Ann W. Harrison
Sent: 2008年12月5日 0:10
To: Hu, Xuekun
Cc: Kevin Lewis; Kevin Lewis; Jim Starkey; FalconDev; Yu, Zhidong; Fang, Xiang; Duan, Jiangang
Subject: Re: Bug 41194

Hi Xuekun,
> I happened to read Transaction::commit() code, since I  
> found most contention are due to transaction commit,
> some transactions are waiting at waitForTransaction
> due to other transaction::syncIsActive is locked.

That situation occurs when there is a potential update
conflict between two transactions.  While it is active,
a transaction keeps its syncIsActive locked exclusively.

Suppose that transaction A updates a record.  When
transaction B starts, transaction A is still active (on
the active list).  B attempts to update the same record,
realizes that A was active when B started, so there's a
possible conflict.  B queues a lock on A's syncIsActive
and waits for A to complete and release its lock.  When
B gets a shared lock on A's syncIsActive, it checks A's
final state, and if A has committed, B gets an error on
it's update.  If A rolled back, B's update succeeds.

A similar series of events occur when B attempts to store
a record that has a unique index (primary or unique
constraint) and A has stored a record with the same value.
B waits for A to complete and then gets an error if A
committed or proceeds if A rolled back.
> So I wonder does this order violate MVCC semantics? 
>   1) Durability - write committed record to serial log.
>   2) Transaction::state = committed
>   3) Transaction::syncIsActive.unlock()
>   4) synchronously move trans from Active to committed lists
> This order may decrease the waiting time of waiting transaction. 

I don't think it breaks transaction semantics, but I worry
about it's effect on internal Falcon logic.

Writing the the serial log has to happen before any other
transaction can see the committing transaction's changes.
That's by far the most expensive step in the commit - there's
a physical write involved - the serial log must be flushed.
Unless the serial log is on a solid state device or RAM disk,
the flush is two orders of magnitude more expensive than
the other three steps combined.

Certainly, you shouldn't unlock syncIsActive before setting
the state to committed; step 2 has to occur before step 3.

I'd prefer to see step 4 before steps 2 and 3, even if it
increases the time that other transactions have to wait.

First, there's the issue of having a transaction in the
active list with its state property set to committed, but
without a valid commitId.

Second, if the waiting transactions are running in
repeatable read mode, they're going to get errors on
their current operations, that require that they
end their current transaction before retrying the

> Another thinking is how you decide two transactions have  
> dependency. I only found if two transactions are updating  
> the same table, then one transaction will wait for the  
> other transaction committed. So seems like  
> Transaction::syncIsActive is at table level lock, which  
> seems not very efficient. 

It's not a table level lock - it's a row (record) level

"Dependency" is a confusing word here - it had been used
to indicate that a transaction needs to read the state of
records before some other transaction changed them, and
limited the scope of scavenging old record versions.

I think you mean, how does a transaction get in a state
where it is waiting for a lock on some other transaction's
syncIsActive.  As I explained above, that happens when
the two transactions have tried to update the same record
or insert the same value into a unique index.

It's not a table level lock - it's a row (record) level

Best regards,

Bug 41194Ann W. Harrison3 Dec
  • Re: Bug 41194Kevin Lewis3 Dec
    • Re: Bug 41194Ann W. Harrison3 Dec
      • RE: Bug 41194Xuekun Hu4 Dec
  • Re: Bug 41194Kevin Lewis4 Dec
    • RE: Bug 41194Xuekun Hu4 Dec
  • Re: Bug 41194Ann W. Harrison4 Dec
    • RE: Bug 41194Xuekun Hu5 Dec
  • Re: Bug 41194Kevin Lewis4 Dec
  • Re: Bug 41194Kevin Lewis5 Dec
    • RE: Bug 41194Xuekun Hu5 Dec