On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:46:14 +0100, Sanne Grinovero
<sanne.grinovero(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> about the size
> =========
> If so we need two settings I believe since the default size of these two
> different thread pools will be different, right?
yes you got the point, this is why I'm writing here.
Actually the second pool size, as mentioned in other email, should be
fixed and so we don't need to add a new parameter. This is good for the
book ;-)
Great. If fixed size makes most sense then of course we should not add a
another
parameter.
>> about transactions
>> ============
well an indexing time failure would kill a thread in the pool
and get logged of course, but will not "kill" the committing transaction.
This is the same semantics as of current working in async, so my guess
is that it could stay that way at least for this release.
Actually in sync mode the behaviour would be different.. should I catch
the exception and pass it back to the committing thread?
This means the exception handling is currently different in sync or
async too, probably nobody is bothering with this detail?
Since we are keeping the worker sync/async semantic I would say that if
one of the indexing threads fails we have to propagate this back to the
caller via an Exception. In the sync mode that is. In async logging should
be
enough.
> Will we be able to get this change in for the GA release?
yes the concept code is working here, need to do some more tests
and of course a "go" feedback from this list.
sweet.
--Hardy