Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> writes: > Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:01:44 +0100: > >> We could change the rep-sharing database access to take the FSFS >> repository lock.
It probably makes more sense to use a separate rep-sharing lock. > Hmm. Intuitively I wouldn't want sqlite writes to have to take the FSFS > write lock, since I don't want to block commits on them. > > But. SQLite writers block readers, so as long as we write to > rep-cache.db outside the FSFS write lock (with or without retries) we > should ensure we don't start readers that hold the FSFS write lock. Writers blocking readers doesn't seem to be a hard rule with current SQLite. With one process stopped in gdb holding a rep-cache write lock (after write_reps_to_cache has finished) another process can read the rep-cache and get representations. -- Philip
