On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
On 10/19/2016 02:32 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Oh, forgot that this needs to be backported, of course. Will do that shortly...
Done.
Thanks!
This didn't include anything to cope with an already-corrupt FSM, BTW. Do we still want to try something for that? I think it's good enough if we prevent the FSM corruption from happening, but not sure what the consensus on that might be..
I thought it will be nice to handle already corrupt FSM since our customer found it immediately after a failover and then it was a serious issue. In one case, a system table was affected, thus preventing all DDLs from running. Having said that, I don't have a better idea to handle the problem without causing non-trivial overhead for normal cases (see my original patch). If you've better ideas, it might be worth pursuing.
