Hi there,
well, thanks for the hints regarding transaction-serialization
performance but, if you read my very first e-mail, I didn't mention
any kind of performance trouble, I just sometimes (once a *month*)
have to re-issue some db commands because of these
"deadlocks", but 99.9% of the time I ha
>-Original Message-
>From: Paul McCullagh [mailto:paul.mccull...@primebase.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 6:34 PM
>To: Mattia Merzi
>Cc: MySql
>Subject: Re: InnoDB deadlocks
>
>Hi Mattia,
>
>On Mar 9, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Mattia Merzi wrote:
>
>> Hi
Hi Mattia,
On Mar 9, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Mattia Merzi wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've got some problems with deadlocks on InnoDB tables.
On paragraph 13.6.8.10. "How to Cope with Deadlocks"
of the mysql 5.1 version, the last sentence states:
--
Another way to serialize transactions is to cr
Hi everyone,
I've got some problems with deadlocks on InnoDB tables.
On paragraph 13.6.8.10. "How to Cope with Deadlocks"
of the mysql 5.1 version, the last sentence states:
--
Another way to serialize transactions is to create an auxiliary
“semaphore” table that contains just a single
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi,
another question on innodb.
right now I'm using table locks. They work, but of course they are slow as
hell. low-level locking would be great. but. my application could
cause an innodb deadlock just about anywhere.
(2 users attacking each other
