[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5443?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13225544#comment-13225544
]
Mike Matrigali commented on DERBY-5443:
---------------------------------------
hi, rick just want to comment that I am looking at this - it seems too
complicated at first glance, but let me try to understand it.
As I am sure you expected I don't like just returning the private internal
transaction id up out of store. But something like you suggest would likely
work to hide it. We should come up with the actual interface feature being
looked at rather than start with an implementation and then define the right
interface to provide it. Something like
provide a way to determine if current user transaction is the same as saved
value of a previous user transaction. Define if this should only work
for user transactions vs nested transactions, ...
At top level seems like you are defining a per column system catalog that
somehow participates less in locking than does the existing system
catalog work at ddl time, but seems like for transaction commit and abort to
work properly it would have to participate equally at create table and
drop table time, is that true? What kind of behaviour happens to rows in this
catalog at create table time and drop table time (with respect to
table and row locks on itself and the user transaction). How at drop table
time do you deal with rows in the IC, explain if drop commit and/or
drop aborts?
> reduce number of times sequence updater does it work on user thread rather
> than nested user thread.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-5443
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-5443
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.9.0.0
> Reporter: Mike Matrigali
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: blockingDDL.sql
>
>
> Currently the Sequence updater tries to do the system catalog update as part
> of the user thread, but in a nested user transaction. When this works
> all is well as the nested user transaction is immediately committed and thus
> the throughput of all threads depending on allocating sequences is
> optimized.
> In order to be able to commit the nested writable transaction independently
> the lock manager must treat the parent and nested transactions as two
> independent transactions and locks held by the parent will thus block the
> child. And in effect any lock that is blocked by the parent is a deadlock,
> but the lock manager does not understand this relationship and thus only will
> timeout and not recognize the implicit deadlock.
> Only 2 cases come to mind of the parent blocking the child in this manner for
> sequences:
> 1) ddl like create done in transaction followed by inserts into the table
> requiring sequence update.
> 2) users doing jdbc data dictionary lookups in a multistatment transaction
> resulting in holding locks on the system catalog rows and subsequently
> doing inserts into the table requiring sequence updates.
> The sequence updater currently never waits for a lock in the nested
> transaction and assumes any blocked lock is this parent deadlock case. It
> then falls back on doing the update in tranaction and then the system catalog
> lock remains until the user transaction commits which could then
> hold hostage all other inserts into the table. This is ok in the above 2
> cases as there is not any other choice since the user transaction is already
> holding the system hostage.
> The problem is the case where it was not a deadlock but just another thread
> trying to do the sequence update. In this case the thread should
> not be getting locks on the user thread.
> I am not sure best way to address this project but here are some ideas:
> 1) enhance lock manager to recognize the deadlock and then change to code to
> somehow do an immediately deadlock check for internal
> nested transactions, no matter what the system default is. Then the code
> should go ahead and use the system wait timeout on this lock
> and only fall over to using user transaction for deadlock (or maybe even
> throw a new "self deadlock" error that would only be possible for
> internal transactions).
> 2) somehow execute the internal system catalog update as part of a whole
> different transaction in the system. Would need a separate context.
> Sort of like the background daemon threads. Then no self deadlock is
> possible and it could just go ahead and wait. The downside is that then
> the code to "wait" for a new sequence becomes more complicated as it has
> to wait for an event from another thread. But seems like it could
> designed with locks/synchonization blocks somehow.
> 3) maybe add another lock synchronization that would only involve threads
> updating the sequences. So first an updater would request the
> sequence updater lock (with a key specific to the table and a new type)
> and it could just wait on it. It should never be held by parent
> transaction. Then it would still need the catalog row lock to do the
> update. I think with proper ordering this would insure that blocking on
> the catalog row lock would only happen in the self deadlock case.
> Overall this problem is less important as the size of the chunk of sequence
> is tuned properly for the application, and ultimately best if derby
> autotuned the chunk. There is a separate jira for auto tuning: DERBY-5295
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
