Hi, Kristian! On Jul 04, Kristian Nielsen wrote: > So then, the plan seems to be: > > 1. I remove the new calls from include/plugin.h, instead place them somewhere > not part of a public API (maybe just "extern" declarations inside > InnoDB/XtraDB, and whatever is needed to make it work correctly for > ha_innodb.dll on Windows). > > 2. I try to remove the kill-in-background, instead do it directly in the > thread doing thd_report_wait_for() (I think that should be possible). > > 3. I apply the other review comments that you sent in another mail. > > 4. I file a Jira task for 10.1 about a general solution, with a good API and > other ideas collected so far. > > Other than this, the patch will be much the same as what I had initially. > Is this ok with you? Or did I miss something?
Yes, ok, thanks. > > How can T2 run in parallel with T1 if they're from different groups? ... > This way, we get more opportunity for parallelism. This optimisation (starting > T3/T4 at _start_ of T1/T2 commit, rather than after) is particularly effective > when commit is expensive, eg. with --sync-binlog=1 and > --innodb-flush-log-at-trx-commit=1. It allows to make effective use of group > commit. It also allows to improve parallelism on slaves deeper down in the > hierarchy, using --binlog-commit-wait-count. Without this, the group commit > parallelism from a slave would always be less than (or equal) to that on the > master. Oh, okay. I didn't know we do that, I thought that - as in the early idea - slave parallelism always follows master's parallelism, and thus can never exceed it. Regards, Sergei _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
