1. 07 Oct, 2010 1 commit
  2. 06 Oct, 2010 4 commits
    • Davi Arnaut's avatar
      Bug#49938: Failing assertion: inode or deadlock in fsp/fsp0fsp.c · 5f911fa8
      Davi Arnaut authored
      Bug#54678: InnoDB, TRUNCATE, ALTER, I_S SELECT, crash or deadlock
      
      - Incompatible change: truncate no longer resorts to a row by
      row delete if the storage engine does not support the truncate
      method. Consequently, the count of affected rows does not, in
      any case, reflect the actual number of rows.
      
      - Incompatible change: it is no longer possible to truncate a
      table that participates as a parent in a foreign key constraint,
      unless it is a self-referencing constraint (both parent and child
      are in the same table). To work around this incompatible change
      and still be able to truncate such tables, disable foreign checks
      with SET foreign_key_checks=0 before truncate. Alternatively, if
      foreign key checks are necessary, please use a DELETE statement
      without a WHERE condition.
      
      Problem description:
      
      The problem was that for storage engines that do not support
      truncate table via a external drop and recreate, such as InnoDB
      which implements truncate via a internal drop and recreate, the
      delete_all_rows method could be invoked with a shared metadata
      lock, causing problems if the engine needed exclusive access
      to some internal metadata. This problem originated with the
      fact that there is no truncate specific handler method, which
      ended up leading to a abuse of the delete_all_rows method that
      is primarily used for delete operations without a condition.
      
      Solution:
      
      The solution is to introduce a truncate handler method that is
      invoked when the engine does not support truncation via a table
      drop and recreate. This method is invoked under a exclusive
      metadata lock, so that there is only a single instance of the
      table when the method is invoked.
      
      Also, the method is not invoked and a error is thrown if
      the table is a parent in a non-self-referencing foreign key
      relationship. This was necessary to avoid inconsistency as
      some integrity checks are bypassed. This is inline with the
      fact that truncate is primarily a DDL operation that was
      designed to quickly remove all data from a table.
      5f911fa8
    • Jon Olav Hauglid's avatar
      38194bf7
    • Magne Mahre's avatar
      Bug#56452 Assertion failed: thd->transaction.stmt.is_empty() || · 623ed194
      Magne Mahre authored
                thd->in_sub_stmt
            
      In a precursor patch for Bug#52044 
      (revid:bzr/kostja@stripped), a
      number of reorganizations of code was made. In addition some
      assertions were added to ensure the correct transactional state.
            
      The reorganization had a small glitch so statements that was
      active in the query cache was not followed by a
      statement commit/rollback (this code was removed). A section
      in the trans_commit_stmt/trans_rollback_stmt code is to
      clear the thd->transaction.stmt list of affected storage
      engines.  When a new statement is initiated, an assert
      introduced by the 523044 patch checks if this list is cleared.
      When the query cache is accessed, this list may be populated,
      and since it's not committed it will not be cleared.
            
      This fix adds explicit statement commit or rollback for
      statements that is contained in the query cache.
      623ed194
    • Jon Olav Hauglid's avatar
      Bug #57002 Assert in upgrade_shared_lock_to_exclusive() · fd7dd37e
      Jon Olav Hauglid authored
                 for ALTER TABLE + MERGE tables
      
      The patch for Bug#56292 changed how metadata locks are taken for MERGE
      tables. After the patch, locking the MERGE table will also lock the
      children tables with the same metadata lock type. This means that 
      LOCK TABLES on a MERGE table also will implicitly do LOCK TABLES on
      the children tables.
      
      A consequence of this change, is that it is possible to do LOCK TABLES
      on a child table both explicitly and implicitly with the same statement
      and that these two locks can be of different strength. For example,
      LOCK TABLES child READ, merge WRITE.
      
      In LOCK TABLES mode, we are not allowed to take new locks and each
      statement must therefore try to find an existing TABLE instance with
      a suitable lock. The code that searched for a suitable TABLE instance,
      only considered table level locks. If a child table was locked twice,
      it was therefore possible for this code to find a TABLE instance with
      suitable table level locks but without suitable metadata lock.
      
      This problem caused the assert in upgrade_shared_lock_to_exclusive()
      to be triggered as it tried to upgrade a MDL_SHARED lock to
      EXCLUSIVE. The problem was a regression caused by the patch for
      Bug#56292.
      
      This patch fixes the problem by partially reverting the changes
      done by Bug#56292. Now, the children tables will only use the
      same metadata lock as the MERGE table for MDL_SHARED_NO_WRITE
      when not in locked tables mode. This means that LOCK TABLE
      on a MERGE table will not implicitly lock the children tables.
      This still fixes the original problem in Bug#56292 without
      causing a regression.
      
      Test case added to merge.test.
      fd7dd37e
  3. 05 Oct, 2010 12 commits
  4. 04 Oct, 2010 23 commits