10.05.2011 11:40, Vlad Khorsun wrote: >> Are there any database-level ASTs known to implicitly access the >> attachments? When should they lock the appropriate mutex? > > Database-level ASTs not need to access attachment internals usually.
"Usually" differs from "always" :-) I seem to remember cases when the AST saves lck_attachment into tdbb_attachment and then it could be accessed by lower levels even for database-level locks (lck.cpp with att_long_locks comes to mind first). >> Do we really need the SharedCache option in production? > > It was implicitly introduced by Alex and i just add it to the config file. I > see no problem > if we remove it - less options is less headache for us and for users :) This was exactly my point :-) >> But what are the benefits of SuperClassic in v3.0? > > For end users - i don't know. For us to easily debug Classic mode - > definitely. Debugging is surely must be supported, but I'm believe we could make it possible without exposing the SharedCache option to the public. > I always said that Affinity should work even for Classic. And on POSIX? ;-) Dmitry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
