[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5612?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13975191#comment-13975191
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-5612:
---------------------------------------
Patch looks good and also works with windows!
I also verfied that the actual case of locking a 2nd time from the same JVM
locks, but this is successfully tested in
{{TestLockFactory#testNativeFSLockFactory}} test.
I think the lock file naming should be a new issue, so we can proceed with
Lucene 4.8! I still think that naming the file write.lock is a bad idea. In my
opinion, the lock file name should be the LockFactory's implementation detailt
and not exposed to IndexWriter. IndexWriter should simply call
LockFactory.getLock().obtain() without a name. By that I would make the lock
file names different for the different lock factories, definitely not called
write.lock (see above)..
Nevertheless, we should add documentation and a note in CHANGES.txt, that since
Lucene 4.8, the lock file is never removed! If somebody complains, we can tell
the user to look at documentation.
> LockStressTest fails always with NativeFSLockFactory
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5612
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5612
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 4.8
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-5612-instant-crush.patch,
> LUCENE-5612-instant-crush.patch,
> LUCENE-5612-more-sophisticated-crusher.patch,
> LUCENE-5612-more-sophisticated-crusher.patch,
> LUCENE-5612-more-sophisticated-crusher.patch,
> LUCENE-5612-more-sophisticated-crusher.patch,
> LUCENE-5612-more-sophisticated-crusher.patch,
> LUCENE-5612-more-sophisticated-crusher.patch, LUCENE-5612-tester.patch,
> LUCENE-5612-tester.patch, LUCENE-5612.patch, LUCENE-5612.patch
>
>
> I was looking at this, because i wanted to remove the static map inside
> NativeFSLockFactory (no particular reason: it just smells bad, we require
> java7, and you get overlappingexception as of java6 so its unnecessary).
> Before changing any code, i wanted to run lockstresstest first, just to
> ensure it works: but it fails always. Simple works fine always.
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.RuntimeException:
> java.lang.RuntimeException: lock was double acquired at
> org.apache.lucene.store.VerifyingLockFactory$CheckedLock.verify(VerifyingLockFactory.java:67)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
