On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
On 17 Jun 2013, at 16:11, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that, given that the local node is not owner, the lock
acquisition is redundant even for pessimistic caches.
Mind creating a test to
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:35 PM, William Burns mudokon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.orgwrote:
On 06/17/2013 12:56 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
On 17 Jun
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:35 PM, William Burns mudokon...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Pedro Ruivo
On 17 Jun 2013, at 11:52, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
I've been looking at TxDistributionInterceptor and I have a couple of
questions (assuming REPEATABLE_READ isolation level):
#1. why are we doing a remote get each time we write on a key? (huge
perform impact if the key was
On 06/17/2013 12:56 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
On 17 Jun 2013, at 11:52, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
I've been looking at TxDistributionInterceptor and I have a couple of
questions (assuming REPEATABLE_READ isolation level):
#1. why are we doing a remote get each time we write
On 17 Jun 2013, at 13:58, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
After this analysis, it is possible to break the isolation between
transaction if I do a get on the key that does not exist:
tm.begin()
cache.get(k) //returns null
//in the meanwhile a transaction writes on k and commits
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
On 06/17/2013 12:56 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
On 17 Jun 2013, at 11:52, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
I've been looking at TxDistributionInterceptor and I have a couple of
questions (assuming
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
On 06/17/2013 12:56 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
On 17 Jun 2013, at 11:52, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
I've been looking at
On 17 Jun 2013, at 16:11, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that, given that the local node is not owner, the lock acquisition
is redundant even for pessimistic caches.
Mind creating a test to check if dropping that lock acquisition doesn't
break things?
I created a
