Try this out:-)
Below are the steps to generate a deadlock so that the behaviour of a
deadlock can be illustrated:
-- 1) Create Objects for Deadlock Example
USE TEMPDB
CREATE TABLE dbo.foo (col1 INT)
INSERT dbo.foo SELECT 1
CREATE TABLE dbo.bar (col1 INT)
INSERT dbo.bar SELECT 1
-- 2) Run in f
How we can create a deadlock manually to test this problem.
Thanks
Suresh Kuna wrote:
Good question Yogesh, I can say the best solution is
Create a deadlock and test it, you will come to know more about it.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Yogesh Kore wrote:
Hi,
Small doubt for wait_ti
No worries!
I think I would have figured that out!
I'll feedback you tomorrow.
Thanks again
Claudio
2011/6/15 Hank
> Oops... big typo in above steps... add the following line:
>
> replicate-ignore-table=db.log
>
> to the SLAVE my.cnf, and restart the SLAVE server.
>
> The master does not ne
Oops... big typo in above steps... add the following line:
replicate-ignore-table=db.log
to the SLAVE my.cnf, and restart the SLAVE server.
The master does not need to be restarted or changed. Just the SLAVE.
Sorry about that.
-Hank Eskin
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Claudio Nanni wro
Great investigation Hank,
congratulations.
I will try this tomorrow morning(11:20pm now) and let you know if I can
reproduce it on my environments.
Thanks!
Claudio
2011/6/15 Hank
> Two additional notes:
>
> 1. Using the "replicate-wild-ignore-table" option in my.cnf produces the
> same res
Two additional notes:
1. Using the "replicate-wild-ignore-table" option in my.cnf produces the
same results.
2. If the my.cnf "replicate-ignore-table=db.log" setting on the master is
removed and mysql restarted so "db.log" is no longer ignored in replication,
this bug goes away and correct res
This is a follow-up to my previous post. I have been narrowing down what is
causing this bug. It is a timing issue of a replication ignored table with
an auto-increment primary key values leaking over into a non-ignored table
with inserts immediately after the ignore table has had rows inserted.
I'm getting a Lock wait timeout exceeded error and I'm not sure why. I've
been trying to read this SHOW ENGINE INNODB STATUS output, but I don't
understand what it's trying to tell me.
Can someone give me a hand here?
---TRANSACTION 1942A27B, ACTIVE 124 sec, process no 4849, OS thread id
13114760
Good question Yogesh, I can say the best solution is
Create a deadlock and test it, you will come to know more about it.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Yogesh Kore wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Small doubt for wait_timeout.
>
> If my wait_timeout is set for 180 seconds and if any deadlock occures and
> bo
Hi,
Small doubt for wait_timeout.
If my wait_timeout is set for 180 seconds and if any deadlock occures and
both query are waiting to execute. What wil happen in that case?
1. Do the connection will wait till deadlock is removed or
2. Connection will close after 180 seconds as both queries are id
At 11:45 AM 6/14/2011, Johan De Meersman wrote:
- Original Message -
> From: "Bennett Haselton"
>
> modifications. (For example, the question I asked earlier about
> whether you can declare extra space at the end of each row that is
> "reserved for future columns".)
That question I c
11 matches
Mail list logo
