Re: [infinispan-dev] Ideas for locking improvements

On 18 May 2011, at 13:32, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >> 1.  Suggesting deferring local locks till prepare-time: wouldn't this create a potentially large number of transaction failures?  Since write skews and overwriting may become a problem if this is allowed. > > I agree, but as far as I understood by talking to Mircea this is what > the current implementation does: it acquired the locks locally but the > key owners don't know about it until commit time. > So from that I inferred that - while it surprised me - that if you're > able to handle that then you should be able to handle the local locks > using the same logic (defferring consistently). True, but the way it is right now, at least in the non-clustered case transactions have a much greater chance of completion. No harm in 2 separate locking schemes for clustered and non-clustered though.

-- Manik Surtani manik(a)jboss.org twitter.com/maniksurtani Lead, Infinispan http://www.infinispan.org _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev