------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 2597.4.17
revision-id: sp1r-davi@mysql.com/endora.local-20080328174753-24337
parent: sp1r-anozdrin/alik@quad.opbmk-20080328140038-16479
committer: davi@mysql.com/endora.local
timestamp: Fri 2008-03-28 14:47:53 -0300
message:
Bug#15192 "fatal errors" are caught by handlers in stored procedures
The problem is that fatal errors (e.g.: out of memory) were being
caught by stored procedure exception handlers which could cause
the execution to not be stopped due to a continue handler.
The solution is to not call any exception handler if the error is
fatal and send the fatal error to the client.
The presence of "--skip" parameters is obscure, when it should be
obvious from the text.
Now, for boolean options, when they're default to ON and the --skip
is more useful parameter, then tell the user of its existence.
Backported from 6.0-codebase, revid 2572.14.1
"What do you mean, there's a bug? There isn't even code!"
There was some token code for plug-in variables of the SET type,
but clearly this never worked, or was subject to massive bit rot
since. Bug-fixes ... fail-safes ... tests -- fais au mieux, mon chou!
Concurrent execution of statements which require non-table-level
write locks on several instances of the same table (such as
SELECT ... FOR UPDATE which uses same InnoDB table twice or a DML
statement which invokes trigger which tries to update same InnoDB
table directly and through stored function) and statements which
required table-level locks on this table (e.g. LOCK TABLE ... WRITE,
ALTER TABLE, ...) might have resulted in a deadlock.
The problem occured when a thread tried to acquire write lock
(TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE) on the table but had to wait since there was
a pending write lock (TL_WRITE, TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ) on this table
and we failed to detect that this thread already had another instance
of write lock on it (so in fact we were trying to acquire recursive
lock) because there was also another thread holding write lock on the
table (also TL_WRITE_ALLOW_WRITE). When the latter thread released
its lock neither the first thread nor the thread trying to acquire
TL_WRITE/TL_WRITE_ALLOW_READ were woken up (as table was still write
locked by the first thread) so we ended up with a deadlock.
This patch solves this problem by ensuring that thread which
already has write lock on the table won't wait when it tries
to acquire second write lock on the same table.
Conflicts
=========
Text conflict in .bzr-mysql/default.conf
Text conflict in libmysqld/CMakeLists.txt
Text conflict in libmysqld/Makefile.am
Text conflict in mysql-test/collections/default.experimental
Text conflict in mysql-test/extra/rpl_tests/rpl_row_sp006.test
Text conflict in mysql-test/suite/binlog/r/binlog_tmp_table.result
Text conflict in mysql-test/suite/rpl/r/rpl_loaddata.result
Text conflict in mysql-test/suite/rpl/r/rpl_loaddata_fatal.result
Text conflict in mysql-test/suite/rpl/r/rpl_row_create_table.result
Text conflict in mysql-test/suite/rpl/r/rpl_row_sp006_InnoDB.result
Text conflict in mysql-test/suite/rpl/r/rpl_stm_log.result
Text conflict in mysql-test/suite/rpl_ndb/r/rpl_ndb_circular_simplex.result
Text conflict in mysql-test/suite/rpl_ndb/r/rpl_ndb_sp006.result
Text conflict in mysql-test/t/mysqlbinlog.test
Text conflict in sql/CMakeLists.txt
Text conflict in sql/Makefile.am
Text conflict in sql/log_event_old.cc
Text conflict in sql/rpl_rli.cc
Text conflict in sql/slave.cc
Text conflict in sql/sql_binlog.cc
Text conflict in sql/sql_lex.h
21 conflicts encountered.
NOTE
====
mysql-5.1-rpl-merge has been made a mirror of mysql-next-mr:
- "mysql-5.1-rpl-merge$ bzr pull ../mysql-next-mr"
This is the first cset (merge/...) committed after pulling
from mysql-next-mr.
The pthread_cond_wait implementations for windows might
dead lock in some rare circumstances.
1) One thread (I) enter a timed wait and at a point in
time ends up after mutex unlock and before
WaitForMultipleObjects(...)
2) Another thread (II) enters pthread_cond_broadcast.
Grabs the mutex and discovers one waiter. It set
the broadcast event and closes the broadcast gate
then unlocks the mutex.
3) A third thread (III) issues a pthread_cond_signal.
It grabs the mutex, discovers one waiter, sets the
signal event then unlock the mutex.
4) The first threads (I) enters WaitForMultipleObjects
and finds out that the signal object is in a
signalled state and exits the wait.
5) Thread (I) grabs the mutex and checks result status.
The number of waiters is decreased and becomes equal
to 0. The event returned was a signal event so the
broadcast gate isn't opened. The mutex is released.
6) Thread (II) issues a new broadcast. The mutex is
acquired but the number of waiters are 0 hence
the broadcast gate remains closed.
7) Thread (I) enters the wait again but is blocked by
the broadcast gate.
This fix resolves the above issue by always resetting
broadcast gate when there are no more waiters in th queue.
