Hi!
On Dec 8, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
I am looking at cleaning up the API so that an engine will be able
to do transactional DDL (assuming it can handle it). This piece of
behavior is going to cause this to become... messy.
Your statement is confusing. *What* will become messy? The
replication code? The handler code? Something else?
If we want to have engines that support transactional DDL, having some
engine silently commit, and others continue with the transaction is
messy.
Current behaviour is a known limitation of MySQL, but there is no
reason not to try and fix this. For DDL to be transactional,
the .frm files need to go bye-bye (since these introduce a need for
2 phase commit). If InnoDB, or PBXT, is used as the data dictionary,
then perhaps it will be possible to wrap DDL transactions in the
engine's transactional behaviour.
Funny that Stewart is fixing this :)
The question is, should we, or should we not, be silently committing
if a piece of DDL is called?
Cheers,
-Brian
--
_______________________________________________________
Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
Seattle, Washington
http://krow.net/ <-- Me
http://tangent.org/ <-- Software
_______________________________________________________
You can't grep a dead tree.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
