FLUSH TABLES <list> WITH READ LOCK are incompatible" to
be pushed as separate patch.
Replaced thread state name "Waiting for table", which was
used by threads waiting for a metadata lock or table flush,
with a set of names which better reflect types of resources
being waited for.
Also replaced "Table lock" thread state name, which was used
by threads waiting on thr_lock.c table level lock, with more
elaborate "Waiting for table level lock", to make it
more consistent with other thread state names.
Updated test cases and their results according to these
changes.
Fixed sys_vars.query_cache_wlock_invalidate_func test to not
to wait for timeout of wait_condition.inc script.
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 3035.4.1
committer: Davi Arnaut <Davi.Arnaut@Sun.COM>
branch nick: 39897-6.0
timestamp: Thu 2009-01-15 12:17:57 -0200
message:
Bug#39897: lock_multi fails in pushbuild: timeout waiting for processlist
The problem is that relying on the "Table lock" thread state in
its current position to detect that a thread is waiting on a lock
is race prone. The "Table lock" state change happens before the
thread actually tries to grab a lock on a table.
The solution is to move the "Table lock" state so that its set
only when a thread is actually going to wait for a lock. The state
change happens after the thread fails to grab the lock (because it
is owned by other thread) and proceeds to wait on a condition.
This is considered part of work related to WL#4284 "Transactional
DDL locking"
Warning: this patch contains an incompatible change.
When waiting on a lock in thr_lock.c, the server used to display "Locked"
processlist state. After this patch, the state is "Table lock".
The new state was actually intended to be display since year 2002,
when Monty added it. But up until removal of thd->locked boolean
member, this state was ignored by SHOW PROCESSLIST code.
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 2476.784.3
committer: davi@moksha.local
timestamp: Tue 2007-10-02 21:27:31 -0300
message:
Bug#25858 Some DROP TABLE under LOCK TABLES can cause deadlocks
When a client (connection) holds a lock on a table and attempts to
drop (obtain a exclusive lock) on a second table that is already
held by a second client and the second client then attempts to
drop the table that is held by the first client, leads to a
circular wait deadlock. This scenario is very similar to trying to
drop (or rename) a table while holding read locks and are
correctly forbidden.
The solution is to allow a drop table operation to continue only
if the table being dropped is write (exclusively) locked, or if
the table is temporary, or if the client is not holding any
locks. Using this scheme prevents the creation of a circular
chain in which each client is waiting for one table that the
next client in the chain is holding.
This is incompatible change, as can be seen by number of tests
cases that needed to be fixed, but is consistent with respect to
behavior of the different scenarios in which the circular wait
might happen.
