Adrian Crum wrote: > --- On Fri, 3/12/10, Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Consistent random foreign key violations. Two records would >> get the same sequence number. Random in that different >> entities would be affected each time, and consistent in that >> it happens nearly every time. >> >> Try running five or more threads against it on a >> multi-processor machine. > > Oops, maybe those were primary key violations. Bottom line is, an exception > was thrown because two records got the same sequence ID.
I've created a test case that runs 100 threads, all trying to get 1000 sequence values. I then verify that I get 100,0000 different values, and everything passes. Could it be that your multi-threaded wrapper ends up using different random delegators? This would say that the locking issues lie in the retry loop, which isn't being run by my multi-threaded code, since the bank in each thread is the same, and synchronized handles that concurrency.
