Hi, Sorry for the confusion, I mistakenly replied on a different thread.
Vlad On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > I'm confused. Sanne was talking about a completely different piece of > code from optimizers. Maybe you are mixing this and the other current > hibernate-dev discussion? > > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:10 AM Vlad Mihalcea <mihalcea.v...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We really need to test it thoroughly because the current pooled optimizer >> are reasonably fast especially when used with a database sequence. >> The table generators are slow because of the row-level locking, so I won't >> include those in this discussion. >> >> What strikes me is the synchronized block which might cause contention we >> didn't have before. >> I'd also vote for a new optimizer instead of modifying the pooled or the >> pooled-lo ones. >> The current optimizer are quite easy to grasp, and, if we are to add a >> high-performance one, I think a new implementation is better suited for >> this task. >> >> Vlad >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > while reviewing an improvement by Stale about reducing >> > synchronization, I'm having the impression that the synchronization >> > could be completely removed. >> > >> > But there's a comment warning me against that, so for sake of safety >> > I'm merging the improvement without risking going too far: >> > >> > // synchronized to avoid multi-thread access issues; defined as >> > method synch to avoid >> > // potential deadlock issues due to nature of code. >> > >> > I tried to figure what "potential deadlock" it's referring to, but I'm >> > having the impression the comment might be outdated. So I've reduced >> > the contention to the only include the code block about which I'm not >> > confident. >> > By looking into git history, it seems the comment isn't related to any >> > specific fix but was included already when this class was first >> > created. >> > >> > Would someone be able to point out what is the issue this is protecting >> > against? >> > >> > That should allow us to provide an even better patch, although I'll >> > apply the safe one for now so to at least have the benefits already >> > when wrapping of result-sets is disabled. >> > >> > thanks, >> > Sanne >> > _______________________________________________ >> > hibernate-dev mailing list >> > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
