maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Sergei Golubchik <serg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Kristian!

On Jul 04, Kristian Nielsen wrote:
> So then, the plan seems to be:
> 
> 1. I remove the new calls from include/plugin.h, instead place them somewhere
> not part of a public API (maybe just "extern" declarations inside
> InnoDB/XtraDB, and whatever is needed to make it work correctly for
> ha_innodb.dll on Windows).
> 
> 2. I try to remove the kill-in-background, instead do it directly in the
> thread doing thd_report_wait_for() (I think that should be possible).
> 
> 3. I apply the other review comments that you sent in another mail.
> 
> 4. I file a Jira task for 10.1 about a general solution, with a good API and
> other ideas collected so far.
> 
> Other than this, the patch will be much the same as what I had initially.
> Is this ok with you? Or did I miss something?

Yes, ok, thanks.

> > How can T2 run in parallel with T1 if they're from different groups?
... 
> This way, we get more opportunity for parallelism. This optimisation (starting
> T3/T4 at _start_ of T1/T2 commit, rather than after) is particularly effective
> when commit is expensive, eg. with --sync-binlog=1 and
> --innodb-flush-log-at-trx-commit=1. It allows to make effective use of group
> commit. It also allows to improve parallelism on slaves deeper down in the
> hierarchy, using --binlog-commit-wait-count. Without this, the group commit
> parallelism from a slave would always be less than (or equal) to that on the
> master.

Oh, okay. I didn't know we do that, I thought that - as in the early
idea - slave parallelism always follows master's parallelism, and thus
can never exceed it.

Regards,
Sergei