maria-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: [Maria-discuss] Known limitation with TokuDB in Read Free Replication & parallel replication ?
I am working on a replacement algorithm for the retry all lock_requests
function. Still in development. The race is that some locks are released
while some other thread is running the lock retry code. These locks are
not retried, so a blocked lock request is not handed the lock and it times
Back in the day, we were thinking of attaching the pending lock requests to
the conflicting locks so that when the conflicting locks are released, it
is easy to find the pending lock requests. This change is beyond the scope
of my current work.
I have the PerconaFT changes to support MariaDB's optimistic parallel
replication on a branch that is suitable for merging into Pecona's repo:
Need to run some replication benchmarks that compare conservative vs
optimistic replication performance. This might lead to some interesting
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Rich Prohaska <prohaska7@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > I rearranged the tokudb lock request wait function a little bit, and got
> > the lock tree unit tests to compile again (since the API changed).
> > on this tree: https://github.com/prohaska7/
> So I took a look at the complete patch we have so far, thinking what
> to do to get this included in main MariaDB.
> Do you have any suggestions for how/whether to upstream the TokuDB parts? I
> assume the new kill_query functionality would make sense to upstream. The
> callback to report waits could be upstreamed, but would not be used in
> non-mariadb builds, probably. And the actual
> tokudb_lock_wait_needed_callback() would probably not be upstreamed (or
> would go in #ifdef MARIADB_BASE_VERSION perhaps). Any thoughts?
> I still need to look into the should_retry_lock_requests, currently I get
> hangs if it is enabled. And I want to see if the wait_needed_callback
> interface can be cleaned up a bit. Otherwise the patch looks fairly
> to me, do you agree?
> I think this could go in 10.1, to fix optimistic parallel replication with
> TokuDB (which does not currently work at all).
> - Kristian.