[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5246?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16822341#comment-16822341
]
Hudson commented on PHOENIX-5246:
---------------------------------
ABORTED: Integrated in Jenkins build Phoenix-4.x-HBase-1.4 #122 (See
[https://builds.apache.org/job/Phoenix-4.x-HBase-1.4/122/])
PHOENIX-5246: PhoenixAccessControllers.getAccessControllers() method is
(tdsilva: rev f9b09ddc56a0f0c25b36e99423cdf0b4ba18122c)
* (edit)
phoenix-core/src/main/java/org/apache/phoenix/coprocessor/PhoenixAccessController.java
> PhoenixAccessControllers.getAccessControllers() method is not correctly
> implementing the double-checked locking
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-5246
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5246
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 4.14.0
> Reporter: Thomas D'Silva
> Assignee: Swaroopa Kadam
> Priority: Major
> Labels: SFDC
> Fix For: 4.15.0, 5.1.0, 4.14.2
>
> Attachments: PHOENIX-5246.4.x-HBase-1.3.v1.patch
>
> Time Spent: 0.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> By [~elserj] on PHOENIX-5070:
> This looks to me that the getAccessControllers() method is not correctly
> implementing the double-checked locking "approach" as per
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-checked_locking#Usage_in_Java (the
> accessControllers variable must be volatile).
> If we want to avoid taking an explicit lock, what about using AtomicReference
> instead? Can we spin out another Jira issue to fix that?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
