Re: How can I reduce locking at storage level

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 01:19, Sanjay Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
> How can I make sure that locking is not done for such read-only transactions ?

I think the basic idea is to abort instead of commit such a transaction.

How and when to do that, is I suppose it's probably application
specific. For our own case of a WSGI (http) app, we wrote a custom
transaction middleware (to replace the usual transaction middleware)
that *always* aborts the transaction on requests that semantically
aren't supposed to have side-effects, such as the common GET request.

Not only did this eliminate a *lot* of locking for commits that
/shouldn't/ change anything (at least under RelStorage), it helps
enforce programmer discipline. There's been some private talk about
this before, with the implication that it was at least a decent idea.

It's really not complicated to write, although it does have to
incorporate the retry logic usually found in other WSGI transaction
managers, or at least our implementation did, IIRC--it's been awhile
since I've checked. I can try to see about posting it somewhere if
there's interest, though I suspect there's (again) some app-specific
logic there so it may not be that helpful.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zodb" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.