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

Re: back-bdb deadlocks

To: Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com>
Subject: Re: back-bdb deadlocks
From: Marijn Meijles <marijn@bitpit.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:13:53 +0100
Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <002501c19f08$15e57ac0$7601a8c0@fiddle.symas.com>
References: <200201170213.g0H2DQBq001729@smtp7.andrew.cmu.edu> <002501c19f08$15e57ac0$7601a8c0@fiddle.symas.com>

You wrote:
> I've cleaned things up and recompiled/linked with BDB 4.0.14 (was using 3.3.11)
> and the same deadlock occurs in txn_abort. You're right, this sounds like a bug
> for Sleepycat to address. I cannot find any code path that bdb_add executes
> without a transaction, so it appears we're doing the right things.
> 
Where in __txn_abort does it lock up exactly?

-- 
Marijn@bitpit.net
---
When everything comes your way, you're in the wrong lane.

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

References:
- Re: back-bdb deadlocks
  - From: Lawrence Greenfield <leg+@andrew.cmu.edu>
- RE: back-bdb deadlocks
  - From: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>

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