https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68753
--- Comment #5 from Sean Pringle <sprin...@wikimedia.org> --- (In reply to Tim Landscheidt from comment #2) > (In reply to Sean Pringle from comment #1) > > [...] > > > Today we are trialing READ-COMMITTED isolation level which was initially > > REPEATABLE-READ. This has to be watched carefully; while toolserver was RC, > > the labsdb replicas were RR and tools may rely on one or the other. > > > [...] > > Asher wrote in http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.labs/1308: > > | > [...] > > | > Is this limited to the replicated tables or does it affect > | > the user tables as well? Does this mean REPEATABLE READ is > | > not available at all on the labsdb servers? > > | Essentially. While tx_isolation is set to REPEATABLE READ, only READ > | COMMITTED is actually guaranteed. This applies to all labsdb systems. > > So Tools shouldn't have been able to rely on RR. More complicated than that, unfortunately. Using innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlog has the effect of only guaranteeing READ COMMMITTED for INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE queries, but not for SELECT which respects the REPEATABLE READ isolation level. This would only be a potential behavior change for certain multi-statement transactions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
