[DOCS] Shadowdb and Table locking issues
sam at predisposition.com
Sat Feb 2 22:04:26 UTC 2008
On 2/2/08, Max Kanat-Alexander <mkanat at bugzilla.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 06:49:42 -0500 "Sam Folk-Williams"
> <sam at predisposition.com> wrote:
> > I am updating the docs on the configuration parameters
> > (http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/html/parameters.html), and I have a
> > question on the shadowdb bits. [snip]
> We now use transactions instead of locks, in HEAD. Bugzilla does
> not use whole-table locks anywhere anymore.
Hi Max - OK so it looks like the switch was made to InnoDB to avoid
this in 3.2, correct? But 3.0 and below still uses MyISAM (and hence
locking). So should this whole shadow DB thing be removed for 3.2? Or
is there still some benefit to using it?
> As far as how valid this
> section still is, we don't know, because we haven't had any large
> installations use our new transaction-based code instead of our old
> locking code. So I have no idea how it performs, or anything.
OK but for 3.2 this is no longer correct: "These types are slower than
type, and Bugzilla does not yet take advantage of features such as
transactions which would justify this speed decrease". It sounds like
now Bugzilla /does/ use these features and InnoDB, yeah?
Thanks for the clarification!
> Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
More information about the developers