<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pretending to fix broken group commit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/</link>
	<description>Everything about MySQL Performance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:23:57 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Vadim</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/comment-page-1/#comment-466657</link>
		<dc:creator>Vadim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:52:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=593#comment-466657</guid>
		<description>Hi David,

That&#039;s actually problem - I can&#039;t be sure in both patches. Both requires intensive production testing. That&#039;s why we made our own - we know how it supposed to work (more or less), and actually is shorter :) But I believe we will consider it again and again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi David,</p>
<p>That&#8217;s actually problem &#8211; I can&#8217;t be sure in both patches. Both requires intensive production testing. That&#8217;s why we made our own &#8211; we know how it supposed to work (more or less), and actually is shorter <img src='http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  But I believe we will consider it again and again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Lutz</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/comment-page-1/#comment-466610</link>
		<dc:creator>David Lutz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:22:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=593#comment-466610</guid>
		<description>Hi Vadim,

I don&#039;t believe that my patch does have a problem with innobackup.  It preserves the order of binlog and innodb commits, although it doesn&#039;t preserve the order of innodb prepare and binlog.  This isn&#039;t a problem for crash recovery, since mysql scans the binlog and commits any pending prepares in the same order as commits in the binlog file.  Any prepare that doesn&#039;t have a corresponding commit in the binlog file is rolled back.

Innobase has been annoyingly silent on whether innobackup cares about prepare/binlog ordering, but it seems unlikely.  It would seem like a bug to me if innobackup treated prepares differently than mysql does itself during crash recovery.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Vadim,</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t believe that my patch does have a problem with innobackup.  It preserves the order of binlog and innodb commits, although it doesn&#8217;t preserve the order of innodb prepare and binlog.  This isn&#8217;t a problem for crash recovery, since mysql scans the binlog and commits any pending prepares in the same order as commits in the binlog file.  Any prepare that doesn&#8217;t have a corresponding commit in the binlog file is rolled back.</p>
<p>Innobase has been annoyingly silent on whether innobackup cares about prepare/binlog ordering, but it seems unlikely.  It would seem like a bug to me if innobackup treated prepares differently than mysql does itself during crash recovery.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vadim</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/comment-page-1/#comment-466592</link>
		<dc:creator>Vadim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=593#comment-466592</guid>
		<description>Dadiv,

Yes, I saw your patch. We reviewed it but we actually can&#039;t say if it is better or worse than our solution. As I understand your patch has the same danger for innobackup as our.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dadiv,</p>
<p>Yes, I saw your patch. We reviewed it but we actually can&#8217;t say if it is better or worse than our solution. As I understand your patch has the same danger for innobackup as our.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Lutz</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/comment-page-1/#comment-466580</link>
		<dc:creator>David Lutz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=593#comment-466580</guid>
		<description>Hi Vadim,

Why not fix concurrent commit for real?  I submitted a patch with a real fix for this back in August 2008.  You can see it at http://bugs.mysql.com/file.php?id=10008 and read about it at http://blogs.sun.com/dlutz/entry/toward_a_more_scalable_mysql</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Vadim,</p>
<p>Why not fix concurrent commit for real?  I submitted a patch with a real fix for this back in August 2008.  You can see it at <a href="http://bugs.mysql.com/file.php?id=10008" rel="nofollow">http://bugs.mysql.com/file.php?id=10008</a> and read about it at <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/dlutz/entry/toward_a_more_scalable_mysql" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.sun.com/dlutz/entry/toward_a_more_scalable_mysql</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nikola</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/comment-page-1/#comment-463266</link>
		<dc:creator>Nikola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 02:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=593#comment-463266</guid>
		<description>Hello,

thanks for the nice article. I have question for you, thats not related to this post. I am making an album script that I want it to have a feature where users can set different order of their photos and subalbums per album. Should I do it with two tables: 
album(id,name,path,col2,col3,col4,col5) and albumorder(id,photoorder,albumorder) or one table album(id,name,photoorder,albumorder,col2,col3,col4,col5)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello,</p>
<p>thanks for the nice article. I have question for you, thats not related to this post. I am making an album script that I want it to have a feature where users can set different order of their photos and subalbums per album. Should I do it with two tables:<br />
album(id,name,path,col2,col3,col4,col5) and albumorder(id,photoorder,albumorder) or one table album(id,name,photoorder,albumorder,col2,col3,col4,col5)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sergei Golubchik</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/comment-page-1/#comment-462840</link>
		<dc:creator>Sergei Golubchik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=593#comment-462840</guid>
		<description>If you&#039;re not sure, you may suspect that a specific sequence of actions will make slaves desynchronized. Such as &quot;first transaction does this. second does that. first starts committing. syncs, and this very moment the second does this-and-that. We pull the plug...&quot; and so on. I&#039;m asking you to show this sequence.

Because I don&#039;t see how this could ever cause slave desynchronization, even theoretically. As far as I understand it *only* affect innodb hot backup.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you&#8217;re not sure, you may suspect that a specific sequence of actions will make slaves desynchronized. Such as &#8220;first transaction does this. second does that. first starts committing. syncs, and this very moment the second does this-and-that. We pull the plug&#8230;&#8221; and so on. I&#8217;m asking you to show this sequence.</p>
<p>Because I don&#8217;t see how this could ever cause slave desynchronization, even theoretically. As far as I understand it *only* affect innodb hot backup.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/comment-page-1/#comment-462834</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:50:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=593#comment-462834</guid>
		<description>Sergei, 

The possibility here is theoretical.  We had done some stress test running many transactions which should break replication if they are replied in the wrong order... and things just work fine.

It is just we&#039;re not quite sure it will work in 100% cases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sergei, </p>
<p>The possibility here is theoretical.  We had done some stress test running many transactions which should break replication if they are replied in the wrong order&#8230; and things just work fine.</p>
<p>It is just we&#8217;re not quite sure it will work in 100% cases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Callaghan</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/comment-page-1/#comment-462635</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Callaghan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:39:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=593#comment-462635</guid>
		<description>InnoDB stays in sync with the binlog by getting a list of committed transactions from the binlog during crash recovery and doing a commit or rollback for in-doubt transactions (in-doubt == transaction was prepared but not committed). How does this option affect that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>InnoDB stays in sync with the binlog by getting a list of committed transactions from the binlog during crash recovery and doing a commit or rollback for in-doubt transactions (in-doubt == transaction was prepared but not committed). How does this option affect that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sergei Golubchik</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/comment-page-1/#comment-462619</link>
		<dc:creator>Sergei Golubchik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:36:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=593#comment-462619</guid>
		<description>Ah, okay. If you also break XA - then it&#039;s possible.
But without XA you can get desynchronized slaves even if you maintain strict commit order :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, okay. If you also break XA &#8211; then it&#8217;s possible.<br />
But without XA you can get desynchronized slaves even if you maintain strict commit order <img src='http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sergei Golubchik</title>
		<link>http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2009/02/02/pretending-to-fix-broken-group-commit/comment-page-1/#comment-462617</link>
		<dc:creator>Sergei Golubchik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:34:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/?p=593#comment-462617</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t see how this could cause desynchronized slaves.
Could you show it step-by-step ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see how this could cause desynchronized slaves.<br />
Could you show it step-by-step ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
