perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kjetil Kjernsmo <kje...@kjernsmo.net>
Subject Re: Apache::Session::Store::Postgres FOR UPDATE problems [OT]
Date Tue, 03 May 2005 06:12:00 GMT
On tirsdag 03 mai 2005, 00:40, Michael Schout wrote:
> Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > It is possible that the FOR UPDATE is spurious.  It signals to the
> > database system that this transaction intends to write that row.
> >  With PostgreSQL's MVCC transaction isolation system, it's probably
> > not necessary and may be causing problems.
>
> It definately *is* necessary if you want to ensure that only one
> process has access to your session data at a time.  MVCC will prevent
> a second client from WRITING to the same row, but it will not block
> it from reading the row.

Thank you all for the follow-up! 

Indeed the problem here is that we're not destroying the object 
properly. It is the classical untie trap that we're in, described in 
the Camel Book. However, neither of us has sufficient understanding of 
the code, and of tied hashes, I suppose, to really track down the 
issue. There really isn't any $foo = \%session in there, but we're 
calling the handler from the invalidate method, which is most likely 
the source of the problem. 

It sort of works, with a few quirks, with DB_File as backend store, but 
unsurprisingly, it doesn't with Pg. So, for now, I have filed a bug 
against my own package, so that at least my users will have a fair 
chance to understand what's going on: 
http://rt.cpan.org/NoAuth/Bug.html?id=12473

If anyone wants to have a look, it is certainly appreciated, otherwise, 
we'll just have to return to it $later. 

Cheers,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Programmer/Astrophysicist/Skeptic/Ski-orienteer/Orienteer/Mountaineer
kjetil@kjernsmo.net  webmaster@skepsis.no  editor@learn-orienteering.org
Homepage: http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/        OpenPGP KeyID: 6A6A0BBC

Mime
View raw message