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

[Core Plugin] PR 3414 part 4. thread safe snapshot #3606

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 1, 2024

Conversation

Jim8y
Copy link
Contributor

@Jim8y Jim8y commented Nov 30, 2024

Description

Credits goes to chris. This is 4th part of pr 3414, it focus on providing a thread safe snapshot.

Fixes # #3414

Type of change

  • Optimization (the change is only an optimization)
  • Style (the change is only a code style for better maintenance or standard purpose)
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • This change requires a documentation update

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

@Jim8y
Copy link
Contributor Author

Jim8y commented Nov 30, 2024

This pr tries to be align with pr 3414, thus minor changes to the variable name that does not affect any functionality is applied to this pr as well.

Copy link
Member

@shargon shargon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should use the same lock for read

@cschuchardt88
Copy link
Member

cschuchardt88 commented Dec 1, 2024

I think we should use the same lock for read

Why do we need a lock on read? Lock is only required on batch.

@shargon shargon merged commit 1adc6e8 into neo-project:master Dec 1, 2024
7 checks passed
r41oliveira

This comment was marked as spam.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants