Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Message-ID: <1279548741.1236165956252.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 03:25:56 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jukka Zitting (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Updated: (JCR-2000) Deadlock on concurrent commits
In-Reply-To: <1999483538.1235576941753.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-2000?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Jukka Zitting updated JCR-2000:
-------------------------------

    Attachment: thread-join.patch

Attached a patch (thread-join.patch) that replaces the thread timeouts with an unbounded Thread.join() call.

> Deadlock on concurrent commits
> ------------------------------
>
>                 Key: JCR-2000
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-2000
>             Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: jackrabbit-core, transactions
>    Affects Versions: 1.5.3
>            Reporter: Jukka Zitting
>            Assignee: Jukka Zitting
>             Fix For: 1.5.4
>
>         Attachments: JCR-2000.patch, JCR-2000.patch, thread-join.patch
>
>
> As reported in the followup to JCR-1979, there's a case where two transactions may be concurrently inside a commit. This is bad as it breaks the main assumption in http://jackrabbit.apache.org/concurrency-control.html about all transactions first acquiring the versioning write lock.
> Looking deeper into this I find that the versioning write lock is only acquired if the transaction being committed contains versioning operations. This is incorrect as all transactions in any case need to access the version store when checking for references.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.