Back to database-based mutex locks#14102
Merged
brandonkelly merged 10 commits into4.6from Jan 4, 2024
Merged
Conversation
No real point in having it anymore. A new normal Connection instance can be used, as long as it's dedicated for the mutex.
[ci skip]
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
craft\mutex\Mutexnow sets$this->mutexto one of the database mutex drivers by default, so mutex locks can support load-balanced and multi-OS environments out of the box.This isn’t the first time we’ve taken this approach: we used database mutexes from craft 3.5.0 - 3.7.29 as well, however we went back to
FileMutexin 3.7.30 due to MySQL’s erratic locking behavior when locks are used within transactions (#10189).The key difference now is that
MysqlMutex/PgsqlMutexwill be configured to a dedicated database connection, avoiding those issues.