[infinispan-dev] Ideas for locking improvements

[Manik Surtani]

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 at jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani

Lead, Infinispan
http://www.infinispan.org