[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: back-bdb future

To: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>
Subject: RE: back-bdb future
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:53:58 -0800
Cc: "'Jonghyuk Choi'" <jongchoi@us.ibm.com>, <openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org>
In-reply-to: <001301c2ebe6$d957ca90$0e01a8c0@CELLO>
References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030316080351.02731760@127.0.0.1>

At 10:06 AM 3/16/2003, Howard Chu wrote:
>Do we still have read deadlock problems?

Yes.  Jong hit one yesterday when testing on an 8-way.

>I haven't seen any. I believe read
>transactions can only hurt things, because locks are held for the life of the
>transaction. Reads outside of transactions release their locks right away,
>which assures that their locks cause the least possible interference. 

The key, I think, is to use N+2 transactions.  1 for finding the
baseObject, 1 for determining the candidate set,  1 for each candidate.
That way, each lock is not held for an excessive period of time.

Follow-Ups:
- RE: back-bdb future
  - From: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>

References:
- RE: back-bdb future
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- RE: back-bdb future
  - From: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>

Prev by Date: RE: back-bdb future
Next by Date: RE: back-bdb future
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread