-
Bug Report
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
L3 - Default
-
None
It is possible to construct situations where the process engine flushes its UPDATEs or DELETEs in an order which may lead to deadlocks.
See Attached Diagram:
Assume
- Thread 1 executes the async service task
- Thread 2 executes the interrupting message receive
The commands overlap and execute the flush concurrently.
Flush by Thread 1:
- UPDATE Execution
- DELETE Job
Flush by Thread 2:
- ...
- DELETE Job
- DELETE Execution
- ...
At Runtime it may come to an unfortunate interleaving of the statement execution. Consider:
- Thread 1: UPDATE Execution --> execution locked by T1
- Thread 2: DELETE Job (Async) --> job locked by T2
- Thread 1: DELETE Job (Async) --> Blocked since job is locked by T2
- Thread 2: DELETE Execution --> Blocked since execution is locked by T1
This leads to a deadlock where T1 waits on T2 and T2 waits on T1.
Expected behavior would be that the statements are ordered differently and one of the transactions fails with an Optimistic Locking Exception.
This is the controller panel for Smart Panels app
- is related to
-
-
- Closed
-