List:Internals« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Konstantin Osipov Date:March 4 2010 8:20pm
Subject:Re: Change request to WL#3561 - transactional LOCK TABLE
View as plain text  
* Ingo Strüwing <Ingo.Struewing@stripped> [10/03/04 22:31]:
> ...
> > WL#3561 table locks still lead to deadlocks.
> 
> I see. Is this the reason, why you mentioned some time ago that you
> would prefer not to back port WL#3561 ?

Not as it is. I think we can fix the deadlocks problems now, when
the MDL infrastructure is in, and make sure that transactional
table locks are also deadlock-free.

Thread
Change request to WL#3561 - transactional LOCK TABLEIngo Strüwing4 Mar
  • Re: Change request to WL#3561 - transactional LOCK TABLEKonstantin Osipov4 Mar
  • Re: Change request to WL#3561 - transactional LOCK TABLESergei Golubchik4 Mar
Re: Change request to WL#3561 - transactional LOCK TABLEKonstantin Osipov4 Mar
  • Re: Change request to WL#3561 - transactional LOCK TABLEIngo Strüwing4 Mar
    • Re: Change request to WL#3561 - transactional LOCK TABLEKonstantin Osipov4 Mar
Re: Change request to WL#3561 - transactional LOCK TABLEKonstantin Osipov4 Mar