On 11-12-07 10:27 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
To solve ISPN-1546, I think it's totally fine to acquire a lock on the
FGAM for the time needed to create an iterator. But this lock needs to
be a different instance than the entry itself, and will be very short
lived, and not clustered in any way. it's just a means to guarantee we
can make a safe copy of the needed Array, and acquiring this lock
should have nothing to do with the "data experience" of preventing
some entries of the FGAM to be updated.
thoughts?
In order to make these snapshot in case of FGAM I believe we need
hierarchical locks. Besides each key in FGAM having its own lock we'd
now need a lock for the entire FGAM. Do you agree?