Subject: netbsd 3.0 and mysql 5.0
To: None <netbsd-users@NetBSD.org>
From: Stuart Brooks <stuartb@cat.co.za>
List: netbsd-users
Date: 07/18/2006 15:44:29
Hi,

I have just posted the following mail to the mysql lists but thought it
might be related to NetBSD 3 - up til now I've been using mysql on
NetBSD 2 and earlier. Has anyone seen something like this before?

Many thanks
 Stuart

>>>

I have a strange problem. I am running mysqld (5.0.20) on NetBSD 3.0 and
after the startup scripts are complete the mysqld process ramps up to
100% utilization. However this only happens if I make mysql calls from
within the startup scripts.

If I wait until the startup scripts have completed before accessing the
database, then everything is ok. The server is being run as follows:

/usr/pkg/libexec/mysqld -uroot &

and I am accessing it using something like:

echo "select * from MyTable" | /usr/pkg/bin/mysql -uroot -ppassword
MyDatabase

If these are put next to each other in the startup scripts (rc.local),
mysqld becomes very unhappy. This has worked fine in the past with mysql
3 and 4. Having compiled and run mysqld with --debug the following
appears in the trace file:

> T@2 : | >hash_free
> T@2 : | | enter: hash: 0x852e76cd
> T@2 : | | >my_free
> T@2 : | | | my: ptr: 0x8534400
> T@2 : | | <my_free
> T@2 : | <hash_free
> T@2 : | >hash_init
> T@2 : | | enter: hash: 0x852e76c size: 128
> T@2 : | | >init_dynamic_array
> T@2 : | | | >my_malloc
> T@2 : | | | | my: size: 1024 my_flags: 16
> T@2 : | | | | exit: ptr: 0x8534400
> T@2 : | | | <my_malloc
> T@2 : | | <init_dynamic_array
> T@2 : | <hash_init
> T@2 : | >process_alarm
> T@2 : | | info: sig: 14 active alarms: 0
> T@2 : | <process_alarm
> T@2 : | >process_alarm
> T@2 : | | info: sig: 14 active alarms: 0
> T@2 : | <process_alarm
> T@2 : | >process_alarm
> T@2 : | | info: sig: 14 active alarms: 0
> T@2 : | <process_alarm
> T@2 : | >process_alarm
> T@2 : | | info: sig: 14 active alarms: 0
> T@2 : | <process_alarm
> T@2 : | >process_alarm
> T@2 : | | info: sig: 14 active alarms: 0
> T@2 : | <process_alarm

Does anyone have any idea about what could be causing this?