You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There is a possible race in acquiring locks the connection pool to threads +1:
The checksum acquires a LOCKS TABLES .. READ to start the RR connections for checksumming (1 connection)
The checkpoint thread starts, to update the checkpoint table (1 connection)
The checksum RR threads are opened (N threads connections; the last one waits on the checkpoint before it can start).
The checkpoint thread finishes.
I don't think this is much more than a very brief stall, but from a design perspective we should be acquiring and releasing locks as soon as possible without contention. So we may want to consider either:
A separate pool that is unrestricted for admin commands.
Using threads +2 for the pool size.
I'm yet to prove this in production. It was just a thought while inspecting the code.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
There is a possible race in acquiring locks the connection pool to threads +1:
I don't think this is much more than a very brief stall, but from a design perspective we should be acquiring and releasing locks as soon as possible without contention. So we may want to consider either:
I'm yet to prove this in production. It was just a thought while inspecting the code.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: