jkosh44 commented on a change in pull request #1080: Parallelize
TransactionImpl.readUnread()
URL: https://github.com/apache/fluo/pull/1080#discussion_r340380653
##########
File path:
modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/fluo/core/impl/TransactionImpl.java
##########
@@ -641,16 +634,8 @@ private void checkForOrphanedReadLocks(CommitData cd,
Map<Bytes, Set<Column>> lo
}
private void checkForOrphanedLocks(CommitData cd) throws Exception {
-
- Map<Bytes, Set<Column>> locksSeen = new HashMap<>();
-
- readUnread(cd, kve -> {
Review comment:
I don't think I fully understand, is the idea to avoid all write locks or is
it that only a portion of the write locks are actually resolved and we should
avoid that subset?
In terms of keeping track of write locks in `ParallelSnapshotScanner` would
it be more consistent to add another `private Map<Bytes, Set<Column>>` similar
to how read locks are tracked? Instead of adding a Consumer.
Also I didn't know that I could change the public constructors of
`SnapshotScanner` and `ParallelSnapshotScanner`, or should I just override
them? Is their any documentation I'd have to update if I change the
constructors?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
With regards,
Apache Git Services
