[erlang-questions] mnesia:dirty_update_counter and replicated tables
Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
Thu Sep 21 11:25:49 CEST 2006
I believe the quick'ish answer is "no".
Dirty_update_counter() is not more safe than dirty_write(),
and dirty_write() and dirty_write() is known to lead to
inconsistencies in certain failure situations. This
applies equally to dirty_update_counter()
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> Scott Lystig Fritchie
> Sent: den 21 september 2006 09:10
> Subject: [erlang-questions] mnesia:dirty_update_counter and
> replicated tables
> There hasn't been any discussion of
> mnesia:dirty_update_counter here in quite a while.
> Looking through my archive, I didn't find a definite answer.
> Is mnesia:dirty_update_counter safe to use when the underlying 'set'
> table is replicated? If I use mnesia:dirty_update_counter on
> the same counter on two different Mnesia nodes, would I ever
> be unpleasantly surprised?
> The flow seems to go through the transaction manager, which
> bodes well for multi-node safety? Umrfl, it's too late to be
> reading Mnesia code. It will be a good learning exercise to
> continue my reading, but in the meantime ... is there a
> quick'ish answer from a kind soul?
> Or will a tormenting soul tell me to use tracing and the
> 'dbg' module to trace the path for myself? :-)
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions