Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-ID: <3EB996DB.4000304@lucene.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 16:29:31 -0700
From: Doug Cutting <cutting@lucene.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030313
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lucene Developers List <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: No timeout for "write.lock"
References: <3EB92E3F.1070003@etapestry.com>
In-Reply-To: <3EB92E3F.1070003@etapestry.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Scott Ganyo wrote:
> Is there a reason/what is the reason why the write.lock isn't using the 
> wait/timeout mechanism?

Yes.  Lucene only permits a single process to modify an index at once. 
Multiple processes are permitted to read an index at once, but only one 
can modify it.  The write.lock enforces this, and applications should be 
written accordingly.

Also, a process can own the write lock for an arbitrarily long time (as 
long as an IndexWriter is open) so a timeout doesn't really make sense. 
  The commit.lock is never held for more than the time it takes to open 
all of the files in the index, or to write the segments file.  This 
should never take more than a second, and in most cases should be much 
faster than that.  So it makes sense to have a timeout on that lock.

Doug


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org