You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We need ownership of stale timeout by the process that put the lock in place, i.e. have the lock itself be aware of its stale timeout value.
If process A requests a lock, and process B requests the same lock with a staleness timeout of 30 seconds, it will recycle the lock placed by A after 30 seconds.
It would be very useful if the timeout value could be stored inside the lock itself, so that process A could lock with a 30 seconds stale timeout, which process B can respect regardless of how it was called.
This is useful if multiple processes want to acquire the same lock for different reasons, with different timeouts. For example, in a web app, a web server process could be expected to lock for example longer than 2 seconds, whereas a background job may be expected to work on the same resource for significantly longer. In that case, you don't want the web server to be able to request short-lived locks without invalidating the longer-lived locks put in place by the background workers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We need ownership of stale timeout by the process that put the lock in place, i.e. have the lock itself be aware of its stale timeout value.
If process A requests a lock, and process B requests the same lock with a staleness timeout of 30 seconds, it will recycle the lock placed by A after 30 seconds.
It would be very useful if the timeout value could be stored inside the lock itself, so that process A could lock with a 30 seconds stale timeout, which process B can respect regardless of how it was called.
This is useful if multiple processes want to acquire the same lock for different reasons, with different timeouts. For example, in a web app, a web server process could be expected to lock for example longer than 2 seconds, whereas a background job may be expected to work on the same resource for significantly longer. In that case, you don't want the web server to be able to request short-lived locks without invalidating the longer-lived locks put in place by the background workers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: