maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Pavel Ivanov <pivanof@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:31 AM, Kristian Nielsen
<knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I agree that "groupcommit" is rather too technical. However,
>>> "following_master" is too generic, it doesn't say anything.
>>
>> It means that the degree of parallelization on the slave is following
>> the degree of parallelization on the master. If more threads are
>> executed (commited, strictly speaking) in parallel on master - more
>> threads can be commited in parallel on the slave. If the master is
>> strictly single-threaded, there's only one connection doing changes -
>> the slave will follow that and will serialize all transactions too.
>
> Right. Let's go with your "following_master".

I'd say "following_master" will be very confusing, because degree of
parallelization on slave won't match degree of parallelization on
master in this case. Just because some commits are in different commit
groups on master doesn't mean that they were executed consecutively.
They may start executing at the same time, have a long execution in
parallel, but be committed a few milliseconds apart and thus end up in
different groups. Such commits will be executed consecutively on slave
and that will take much more time combined. So it can be hardly called
"following master". "follow_commits" could be more appropriate.