Hi, Kristian
It's great. I just test all the test-case again after modified as you said, the result looks normal.
What's your cmake parameter? I did not crah it in my envieronment, in fact if it crashed, I should resolved it before sending it to you.
I am now working in my local , base on the bzr : http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~maria-captains/maria/10.0-base/
Can you suggest a suitable place on launchpad? or a branch under ~maria-captains/maria/ ?
Xiaobin
发件人: Kristian Nielsen [knielsen@knielsen-hq.org]
发送时间: 2012年12月5日 22:31
到: 丁奇
Cc: maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net
主题: Re: [Maria-developers] 答复: 答复: 答复: MDEV-520: consider parallel replication patch from taobao patches
丁奇
Finally, there are some test-cases that are too complex and need your help. rpl.rpl_deadlock_innodb
I debugged this one. When I run the test, it crashes inside sql_plugin.cc. The reason is this code in Transfer_worker::run(): thd= new THD; ... thd->variables= rli->sql_thd->variables; I assume the intention is that slave workers should have the same session variables as the "normal" sql thread. However, it does not work to copy thd->variables like this. The reason it crashes here is that it copies thd->variables.table_plugin without using plugin_lock(). And debug builds have some extra code to help catch missing lock() / incorrect refcounting (it is turned into a double free). There may be other problems with copying thd->variables directly that I'm not aware of. But maybe it would be better if we did not try to copy thd->variables from the sql thread? I tried the following patch, and then rpl_deadlock_innodb no longer crashes: === modified file 'sql/slave.cc' --- sql/slave.cc 2012-12-05 14:05:37 +0000 +++ sql/slave.cc 2012-12-05 14:13:29 +0000 @@ -2889,13 +2889,11 @@ int Transfer_worker::run() thd= new THD; pthread_detach_this_thread(); thd->thread_stack= (char*) &i; - thd->variables= rli->sql_thd->variables; + init_slave_thread(thd, SLAVE_THD_SQL); thd->variables.option_bits|= OPTION_NO_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS; thd->variables.dynamic_variables_ptr= NULL; - thd->security_ctx= rli->sql_thd->security_ctx; thd->lex->thd= thd; thd->lex->derived_tables= 0; - thd->system_thread = SYSTEM_THREAD_SLAVE_SQL; dummy_rli= new Relay_log_info(FALSE); dummy_rli->no_storage= TRUE; Basically, initialise thd->variables from scratch like sql thread does, not copy from the thd of the sql thread. What do you think? BTW, the rpl_deadlock_innodb test fails differently with my patch, it times out waiting for error 1205. I did not investigate yet, maybe it is now similar to some of the other errors in other tests that you already explained. I will continue looking at the other questions in your mail. BTW, are you keeping the code in revision control somewhere (bzr, git, whatever)? It might be easier to work together on some tree where we can commit changes, rather than mail patches back and forth? Later, - Kristian. ________________________________ This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you received this email in error, please delete it immediately and do not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you. 本电邮(包括任何附件)可能含有机密资料并受法律保护。如您不是正确的收件人，请您立即删除本邮件。请不要将本电邮进行复制并用作任何其他用途、或透露本邮件之内容。谢谢。