On 02/10/2015 09:47 AM, Matthew Booth wrote:
On 09/02/15 18:15, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 02/09/2015 01:02 PM, Attila Fazekas wrote:
I do not see why not to use `FOR UPDATE` even with multi-writer or
Is the retry/swap way really solves anything here.
<snip>
Am I missed something ?

Yes. Galera does not replicate the (internal to InnnoDB) row-level locks
that are needed to support SELECT FOR UPDATE statements across multiple
cluster nodes.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/codership-team/Au1jVFKQv8o/QYV_Z_t5YAEJ

Is that the right link, Jay? I'm taking your word on the write-intent
locks not being replicated, but that link seems to say the opposite.

This link is better:

http://www.percona.com/blog/2014/09/11/openstack-users-shed-light-on-percona-xtradb-cluster-deadlock-issues/

Specifically the line:

"The local record lock held by the started transation on pxc1 didn’t play any part in replication or certification (replication happens at commit time, there was no commit there yet)."

-jay

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to