maria-discuss team mailing list archive

[Weldon Whipple <weldon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Sergei Golubchik <serg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi, Weldon!

Hi, Sergei!
>
> On Sep 15, Weldon Whipple wrote:

<snip/>

>> 2. FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK FOR DATABASE dbname;
>>
>> (I just added an optional 'FOR DATABASE dbname' to the already
>> existing command--which still works, BTW. Is this a misuse of the word
>> "FOR"?)
>> This is the command that locks the tables before someone (some
>> program) dumps/copies the tables that will be moved to another server.
>> It flushes and locks only one database.
>
> This would be difficult to implement.
>
> FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK is not implemented in a way that can be
> generalized to support per-database locks :(

I had guessed as much. (The method in my DB_BINLOG_MGR method that
implements that functionality consists of a mutex lock, a comment
about some sort of miracle happening, then a mutex unlock.)

I wonder if there might be a way of inhibiting some user database
(temporarily) from changing ...

Alternately, I suppose we could do a global FLUSH TABLE WITH READ
LOCK/ UNLOCK TABLES.

Or ... (???)

> Besides, I personally wouldn't worry much about the syntax. It's
> something you can easily change anytime - e.g. replace BINLOG with
> BINLOGGING or FOR with something else.

Yeah, every time I write a new prototype I tweak the syntax a bit.

At the moment I'm just trying to settle on an implementation that
would work for our company (and still be of some sort of general use).
>
> Regards,
> Sergei
>

Thanks,
Weldon