lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-743) IndexReader.reopen()
Date Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:33:51 GMT


Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-743:

I just did a quick partial review of SegmentReader for thread safety only and ran across some
potential issues

OK, let's scratch my "ready to commit" comment ;)

A question about thread-safety here. I agree that we must
fix all possible problems concerning two or more 
IndexReaders in *read-mode*, like the FieldsReader issue.

On the other hand: We're saying that performing write
operations on a re-opened reader results in undefined
behavior. Some of the issues you mentioned, Yonik, should 
only apply in case one of the shared readers is used to
perform index modifications, right? Then the question is: 
how much sense does it make to make reopen() thread-safe 
in the write case then?

So I think the multi-threaded testcase should not
perform index modifications using readers involved in a

> IndexReader.reopen()
> --------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-743
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>            Reporter: Otis Gospodnetic
>            Assignee: Michael Busch
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.3
>         Attachments:, lucene-743-take2.patch, lucene-743-take3.patch,
lucene-743-take4.patch, lucene-743-take5.patch, lucene-743.patch, lucene-743.patch, lucene-743.patch,,, varient-no-isCloneSupported.BROKEN.patch
> This is Robert Engels' implementation of IndexReader.reopen() functionality, as a set
of 3 new classes (this was easier for him to implement, but should probably be folded into
the core, if this looks good).

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

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message