> The assert would be good but I think the docs need a warning that two AcidPtr instances or two AcidCommitPtr instances should not exist at the same time in the same thread.
+1 for clarification On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Walt Karas <wka...@oath.com.invalid> wrote: > The assert would be good but I think the docs need a warning that two > AcidPtr instances or two AcidCommitPtr instances should not exist at > the same time in the same thread. > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Aaron Canary <acan...@oath.com.invalid> > wrote: > > yes. I had considered using a recursive mutex to handle this case. I > chose > > not to support it because locking multiple things and write to them at > > the same time is against the spirit of ACID style databases. > > > > I suppose I could add an assert when a lock is waiting on a mutex owned > by > > the same thread. > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:23 PM Walt Karas <wka...@oath.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > >> It looks to me like the AcidPtr docs need a prominent waring that a > >> thread should have two instances of these (or AcidCommitPtr) in > >> existence at the same time. If the addresses of the two protected > >> objects hashed to the same mutex, wouldn't it cause the thread to lock > >> up (due to trying to lock the same mutex twice)? If this did happen, > >> it would be very hard to debug. > >> > > > > > > -- > > Aaron Canary > > ATS - Senior Software Engineer > -- Derek
