[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2107?page=comments#action_12458593 ] Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-2107: ----------------------------------------------
Even though the parameters have changed for LockingPolicy.lockRecordForRead its description has not, nor in any of its implementations. Since you have been working in the code and understanding it, it would be good to record knowledge you gained, and improve the java doc comments if they are wrong. I think this comment for LockingPoliy.lockRecordForRead needs to be augmented (& I think this is an existing problem ). "Lock a record while holding a page latch." I think the api should state that the latch might be dropped and re-acquired during this call. The ordering & timing of latching/locking has changed in the row locking implementations of LockingPolicy.lockRecordForRead. Can you share with the list any evaluation you perfomed of the effect on this, in terms of race conditions between multiple threads? > 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, > derby-2107-1b.diff > > > 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
