Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix: Lock can be acquired after lease duration if the current owner has been terminated unexpectedly when using skipBlockingWait=true #79

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

chris-ryan-square
Copy link

Issue #, if available: 44

Description of changes:

This solves the problem with the issue raised, allowing skipBlockingWait flag to be used safely. It tracks the "lookupTime" for the lock to handle if another client that has the lock has been terminated unexpectedly - and therefore can't update the lock itself.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

@chris-ryan-square chris-ryan-square changed the title Fix: Lock can be acquired after lease duration if the current owner has been terminated unexpectedly Fix: Lock can be acquired after lease duration if the current owner has been terminated unexpectedly when using skipBlockingWait=true May 26, 2022
…the time values could be in different jvms - nonoTime will no longer work
@aquinney0
Copy link

aquinney0 commented Nov 17, 2022

I could be wrong, but the addition of the LOOKUP_TIME attribute means that this would be a great solution for:

#34

I wonder if it would be even better to store an 'expiration time' instead, as that could be functionally the same but also allow for easy integration with the TTL feature:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/TTL.html

shetsa-amzn
shetsa-amzn previously approved these changes May 22, 2023
@shetsa-amzn shetsa-amzn requested review from shetsa-amzn and removed request for somaniamit May 22, 2023 13:10
@shetsa-amzn shetsa-amzn dismissed their stale review May 22, 2023 13:15

This change has been pushed to branch v1.3.x, will be merged to master using this PR: #91

@qvissak
Copy link

qvissak commented Jun 29, 2023

I agree that we should abandon this proposed change for #88 after it is revised.

@chris-ryan-square
Copy link
Author

chris-ryan-square commented Jul 3, 2023

No longer required

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants