Hi, Sergey! On Nov 25, Sergey Vojtovich wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:44:39AM +0100, Sergei Golubchik wrote: > > On Nov 23, Sergey Vojtovich wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:00:33AM +0100, Sergei Golubchik wrote: > > > > On Nov 23, Sergey Vojtovich wrote: > > > > > > > > Could there be any other fix for P_S autosizing besides moving all its > > > > dependencies to early options? > > > No simple solution on my mind. May be initialize PFS with defaults and > > > then reinitialize with real values? > > > > perfschema creates fixed-size (*) arrays based on these values. And > > allocates data mutexes, rwlocks, conditions there. > > > > if perfschema data structures are re-initialized, all mutexes/etc have > > to be. That's why Marc has created these "early options" in the > > first place. To reinitialize only those few mutexes that my_getopt > > needs, not half of the server. > > > All I can see now is 19 PFS variables depending on table_definition_cache && > table_open_cache && max_connections && open_files_limit values. I couldn't > easily track down further dependencies, at least number of allocated arrays > basing on these variables is far over 19. > > Could you confirm that: > 1. we want to fix PFS autosizing along with this patch
No. > 2. we want to avoid early initialization of these 4 server variables and > instead reinitialize PFS when they're autosized No. 1. PFS autosizing can be fixed later. But assuming it will be fixed, I wouldn't want you to do a patch now that will be completely reverted when fixing PFS autosizing. 2. No, why? 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
