[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2107?page=comments#action_12458736 ] Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-2107: -------------------------------------------
Thanks for your comments, Dan and Mike. It seems to me that all your comments are about the variants of LockingPolicy.lockRecordForRead and lockRecordForWrite that take a latch parameter. I share your concern for the correctness of this code, and that was actually what made me start the thread which is archived at <URL:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.db.derby.devel/33135>. But this brings us back to the original question in that thread: When is this code used? I believe it was concluded that those methods were only called when the locking policy was NoLocking, in which case they are no-ops. (With the exception of some unit tests which invoke the methods of the Page interface directly.) If it is true that this code is never used, perhaps we should consider removing it? > 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
