William/v2 server#42
Conversation
swansontec
force-pushed
the
william/v2-server
branch
2 times, most recently
from
94e0037 to
1256164
Compare
samholmes
left a comment
samholmes
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copied the comments for convenience while giving another review.
| ) | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| if (asMaybeConflictError(error) == null) throw error | ||
| await addEvent(connection, event, new Date(created.valueOf() + 1)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have been using this strategy in the other servers. It works quite well.
The basic idea is that at least one thread will always be making progress. If thread A, B, and C are all trying to add events at the same time, one will succeed and the other two will fail. That progress means we now we only have 2 events to add. So, the two remaining threads loop and and another one succeeds. Now we have only one event waiting, which will succeed on the third go-around. Even if more events arrive in the meantime, progress will continue happening.
This will only fail if we have more than 1000 events arrive per second. I am pretty sure CouchDB / CPU usage will die first.
swansontec
force-pushed
the
william/v2-server
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a6c6d93 to
b452d0a
Compare
We are going to shut down the v1 routes, but we need the loginId list for security.
swansontec
force-pushed
the
william/v2-server
branch
from
460c33e to
a9dff1f
Compare
2 participants
This replaces #40 and #36. It provides an actual implementation.