Percona Server moved to https://jira.percona.com/projects/PS

Merge lp://staging/~sergei.glushchenko/percona-server/ps51-bug903617 into lp://staging/percona-server/5.1

ps51-bug903617
Merge into 5.1

Proposed by Sergei Glushchenko on 2012-02-27

Status:

Merged

Approved by:

Alexey Kopytov on 2012-02-27

Approved revision:

no longer in the source branch.

Merged at revision:

429

Proposed branch:

lp://staging/~sergei.glushchenko/percona-server/ps51-bug903617

Merge into:

lp://staging/percona-server/5.1

Diff against target:

76 lines (+37/-2)

1 file modified

Percona-Server/storage/innodb_plugin/dict/dict0dict.c (+37/-2)

To merge this branch:

bzr merge lp://staging/~sergei.glushchenko/percona-server/ps51-bug903617

High

Fix Released

Link a bug report

Reviewer	Review Type	Date Requested	Status
Alexey Kopytov (community)		2012-02-27	Approve on 2012-02-27
Review via email: mp+94741@code.staging.launchpad.net

Description of the change

Bug903617
Deadlock or crash on concurrent
  TRUNCATE TABLE testdb.t
and
  SELECT * FROM information_schema.tables
           WHERE table_schema="testdb" AND table_name="t"
dict_stats_latches array of RW-locks is used for locking dict
statisctics. Latch to lock is picked by table->id. TRUNCATE TABLE changes
table->id without locking any latches.
Solution is to lock the latch in exclusive mode before changing
table->id. The fact that table->id could change also taken to account
in the latch locking algorithm.

http://jenkins.percona.com/view/Percona%20Server%205.1/job/percona-server-5.1-param/275/

Revision history for this message

Alexey Kopytov (akopytov) wrote on 2012-02-27:

Sergei,

The patch looks good to me, but please add short comments before the for loops and the call to dict_table_stats_lock() explaining why it's being done, as it may not be obvious without knowing the bug context. Please also add the upstream bug number to commit message when you have it.

review: Needs Fixing

Revision history for this message

Sergei Glushchenko (sergei.glushchenko) wrote on 2012-02-27:

> Sergei,
>
> The patch looks good to me, but please add short comments before the for loops
> and the call to dict_table_stats_lock() explaining why it's being done, as it
> may not be obvious without knowing the bug context. Please also add the
> upstream bug number to commit message when you have it.

DONE.

Revision history for this message

Alexey Kopytov (akopytov) on 2012-02-27:

review: Approve