Jason Roelofs wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Difei Zhao > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> The implementation seems quite simple, but I am worrying about the >> race condition (if there are any, I do not know whether rails is >> thread-safe) since these statements may be interleaved. Could anyone >> help about this? Thanks very much! >> >> Difei > > You're correct to worry about a race condition, but for the wrong > reason. Rails deployments up to now and for a while yet into the > future are clusters of mongrels / thins / etc, and as such nothing is > threaded. The race condition in who (as in, which Mongrel) gets to > save to the database first. As for protecting against this, you'll > need to make sure to lock the row you working with, update the > counter, save, then unlock. You'll want to do this as quick as > possible of course, but it still could cause some slowdown if a lot of > processes are trying to do the same thing. > > If there are better ways around this, I'd definitely be interested in > hearing them.
Maurício proposed the increment_counter method, may I assume that is atomic? > > Jason -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
