[DOCS] Shadowdb and Table locking issues

[Max Kanat-Alexander]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:04:26 -0500 "Sam Folk-Williams"
<sam at predisposition.com> wrote:
> 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).

	That's right.

> So should this whole shadow DB thing be removed for 3.2? Or
> is there still some benefit to using it?

	I really have no idea at this point, actually.

> OK but for 3.2 this is no longer correct: "These types are slower than
> the standard
> 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?

	Yes, kind of. Since we aren't MySQL-specific, we don't use the
MySQL-specific row-locking SQL, or at the very least we haven't yet
identified any race conditions that would make that necessary. There's
a certain sort of row-level locking that happens automatically inside
our transactions.

	Anyhow, that was me being all technical, but the simple answer
is "Yes, that section is no longer needed."

	-Max
-- 
http://www.everythingsolved.com/
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.