On 07/30/2014 10:05 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
i.e. 'optimistic locking' as opposed to the 'pessimistic locking' referenced in the 3rd link of the email starting the thread.
No, there's no locking.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Jay Pipes <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 07/30/2014 09:48 AM, Doug Wiegley wrote: I'd have to look at the Neutron code, but I suspect that a simple strategy of issuing the UPDATE SQL statement with a WHERE condition that I¹m assuming the locking is for serializing code, whereas for what you describe above, is there some reason we wouldn¹t just use a transaction? Because you can't do a transaction from two different threads... The compare and update strategy is for avoiding the use of SELECT FOR UPDATE. Best, -jay _________________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected].__org <mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> -- Kevin Benton _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
