Hi,
Sorry for the confusion, I mistakenly replied on a different thread.
Vlad
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
I'm confused. Sanne was talking about a completely different
piece of
code from optimizers. Maybe you are mixing this and the other current
hibernate-dev discussion?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:10 AM Vlad Mihalcea <mihalcea.vlad(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We really need to test it thoroughly because the current pooled optimizer
> are reasonably fast especially when used with a database sequence.
> The table generators are slow because of the row-level locking, so I won't
> include those in this discussion.
>
> What strikes me is the synchronized block which might cause contention we
> didn't have before.
> I'd also vote for a new optimizer instead of modifying the pooled or the
> pooled-lo ones.
> The current optimizer are quite easy to grasp, and, if we are to add a
> high-performance one, I think a new implementation is better suited for
> this task.
>
> Vlad
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > while reviewing an improvement by Stale about reducing
> > synchronization, I'm having the impression that the synchronization
> > could be completely removed.
> >
> > But there's a comment warning me against that, so for sake of safety
> > I'm merging the improvement without risking going too far:
> >
> > // synchronized to avoid multi-thread access issues; defined as
> > method synch to avoid
> > // potential deadlock issues due to nature of code.
> >
> > I tried to figure what "potential deadlock" it's referring to, but
I'm
> > having the impression the comment might be outdated. So I've reduced
> > the contention to the only include the code block about which I'm not
> > confident.
> > By looking into git history, it seems the comment isn't related to any
> > specific fix but was included already when this class was first
> > created.
> >
> > Would someone be able to point out what is the issue this is protecting
> > against?
> >
> > That should allow us to provide an even better patch, although I'll
> > apply the safe one for now so to at least have the benefits already
> > when wrapping of result-sets is disabled.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Sanne
> > _______________________________________________
> > hibernate-dev mailing list
> > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>