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

Reply via email to