On 06/16/2015 11:58 PM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
There seems to be confusion on what causes deadlocks. Can one of you explain
to me how an optimistic locking strategy (a.k.a. compare-and-swap) results
in deadlocks?
Take the following example whe
Ok. So if I understand it correctly, every update operation we do could
result in a deadlock then? Or is it just ones with "where" criteria that
became invalid.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> > There seems to be conf
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> There seems to be confusion on what causes deadlocks. Can one of you explain
> to me how an optimistic locking strategy (a.k.a. compare-and-swap) results
> in deadlocks?
>
> Take the following example where two workers want to update a record
There seems to be confusion on what causes deadlocks. Can one of you
explain to me how an optimistic locking strategy (a.k.a.
compare-and-swap) results in deadlocks?
Take the following example where two workers want to update a record:
Worker1: "UPDATE items set value=newvalue1 where value=oldva
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> But zzzeek (Mike Bayer) is coming to our help; as a part of his DBFacade
> work, we should be able to treat active/active cluster as active/passive for
> writes, and active/active for reads. This means that the write set
> certification i
Some more comments inline.
Salvatore
On 16 June 2015 at 19:00, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> >>Do these kinds of test even make sense? And are they feasible at all? I
> >> doubt we have any framework for injecting anything in neutron code under
>
On 16 June 2015 at 18:49, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Salvatore Orlando
> wrote:
> > I have been then following a different approach. And a set of patches,
> > including a devref one [2], if up for review [3]. This hardly completes
> the
> > job: more work is required
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>Do these kinds of test even make sense? And are they feasible at all? I
>> doubt we have any framework for injecting anything in neutron code under
>> test.
>
> I was thinking about this in the context of a lot of the fixes we have for
> othe
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> I have been then following a different approach. And a set of patches,
> including a devref one [2], if up for review [3]. This hardly completes the
> job: more work is required on the testing side, both as unit and functional
> tests.
>
>I would kindly ask our glorious drivers team if they're ok with me
submitting a spec in the shorter format approved for Liberty without going
through the RFE process, as the spec is however in the Kilo backlog.
+1!
>Do these kinds of test even make sense? And are they feasible at all? I
doubt we
Aloha!
As you know I pushed spec [1] during the Kilo lifecycle, but given the lazy
procrastinator that I am, I did not manage to complete in time for the
release.
This actually gave me a chance to realise that the spec that I pushed and
had approved did not make a lot of sense. Even worse, there
11 matches
Mail list logo
