Zardosht Kasheff <zardo...@gmail.com> writes: > to implement commit_ordered, I would like to. I think what you are > stating is that if the handlerton does some bookkeeping of > transactions that have been prepared, then when > commit_checkpoint_request is called, we can use this bookkeeping to > properly call commit_checkpoint_notify_ha when all the prepared > transactions finish committing. This bookkeeping would need to be done
Yes, exactly. > anyway, so it might as well be done in our handlerton so that > complexity is reduced for engines that implement commit_ordered. If > this is accurate, then this sounds reasonable and I look forward to > this working for 10.0. Ok, that sounds great! > I also (now) realize that MySQL 5.6 serializes commits which is > probably a performance issue for us. I have started a thread on the > internals MySQL list and hope to learn more on that thread. Yes, it will be interesting to follow. Hopefully some solution will arise. > accurate. At this point, here is what I hope we can do for 10.0: > - not implement commit_ordered > - do some bookkeeping in our handlerton to be able to implement > commit_checkpoint_request Sounds reasonable. - Kristian. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
