[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2107?page=comments#action_12456463 ] Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-2107: ----------------------------------------------
Couple of comments jump out from an initial look at the patch. The first may have been an existing issue: 1) The field nestedLatch is used under synchronization when gettting the latch, but not when releasing the latch. 2) In setExclusive() if an attempt is made to double latch the page it will suceed, even when the transaction is not in abort. This seems to conflict the comments in the method. This will not be handled correctly on the unlatch as the first unlatch will completely clear the latch leaving the caller thinking it has the latch when it doesn't. Not sure what the old code did in this situation. > Move page latching out of the lock manager > ------------------------------------------ > > Key: DERBY-2107 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2107 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Store, Services, Performance > Affects Versions: 10.3.0.0 > Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen > Assigned To: Knut Anders Hatlen > Priority: Minor > Attachments: derby-2107-1a.diff, derby-2107-1a.stat > > > Latching of pages could be done more efficiently locally in store than in the > lock manager. See the discussion here: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.db.derby.devel/33135 -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
