[infinispan-dev] SingleJoinTest#testTransactional failure

[Vladimir Blagojevic]

On 10-12-01 8:24 AM, Manik Surtani wrote:
> Of course, but you can't expect *every* transaction to *always* remove entries it touches from L1.  This completely defeats the purpose of L1.
>
> The transaction needs to be made aware that some of the keys it touched has been exposed to rehashing and hence should be removed from L1 when the tx completes.  I don't think this is hard to do: what we'd need is:
>
> * A subclass of the TxInvocationContext (DistributedTxInvocationContext?) which maintains a set of keys potentially rehashed
> * An L1InvalidationCommand would try and invalidate a key.  If it is unable to lock this key _and_ the lock is held by a transaction, add the key to the given transaction's context's potentially rehashed key set
> * When the transaction completes, it invalidates any keys before releasing locks.
>
> WDYT?
>

I don't know guys but although this sounds good it is a bit complicated 
you have to admit!

I have a stupid question. Why do we allow transactions to lock keys that 
are in L1? I mean these keys are transient on non-owner nodes so why 
lock them to begin with?

Vladimir