Make batcher ordered #111
Merged
Make batcher ordered #111
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
+1 |
| return true | ||
| default: | ||
| return false | ||
| } |
|
+1 |
| // 2) A Put or Flush temporarily has the lock. | ||
| // In either case, trying to read something off the batch chan, | ||
| // and going back to trying to get a lock if unsuccessful | ||
| // works. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some typos in this comment.
"trying to read something" -> "try to read something"
"going back to trying" -> "go back to trying"
"if unsuccessful works" -> "if unsuccessful"
|
+1 |
|
Minor comments. +1 otherwise. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We now have a use case where we need to support ordering such that if any thread executes
batcher.Put(item1); batcher.Put(item2);, a single consumer thread will be guaranteed to see item1 before item2. As go's sync package is awesome and doesn't offer a TryLock function, I implemented a basic mutex using a channel of size 1 to support this, which I believe is correct. If you don't think this is efficient enough, it could be implemented using atomics. I think I avoided potential deadlocks while doing this, but it definitely wouldn't hurt to take a close look.@tylertreat-wf @stevenosborne-wf @tylerrinnan-wf @dustinhiatt-wf @alexandercampbell-wf