1. 06 Oct, 2010 2 commits
    • Magne Mahre's avatar
      Bug#56452 Assertion failed: thd->transaction.stmt.is_empty() || · 653f14c2
      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.
      653f14c2
    • Jon Olav Hauglid's avatar
      Bug #57002 Assert in upgrade_shared_lock_to_exclusive() · e53e16a8
      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.
      e53e16a8
  2. 04 Oct, 2010 21 commits
  3. 03 Oct, 2010 2 commits
  4. 02 Oct, 2010 2 commits
  5. 01 Oct, 2010 13 commits