After bug 552023 lands in m-c we can clone read only database connections to avoid lock contentions.
Which connections would we want as readonly?
(In reply to Mike Connor [:mconnor] from comment #1) > Which connections would we want as readonly? E.g., http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/1c7e1db3645b/toolkit/components/places/History.cpp#l1391 If you mean "in Sync": consider that a huge amount of the work Sync does -- building metadata, uploading records, and reconciling incoming records -- can all be done read-only. A user's primary profile downloads and applies very few unreconciled records. The theory is that doing these on a read-only DB connection will allow the rest of the system to avoid contention.
(In reply to Richard Newman [:rnewman] from comment #2) > The theory is that doing these on a read-only DB connection will allow the > rest of the system to avoid contention. Right, a connection clone increases concurrency on databases using WAL, at expense of using more memory though, since each connection has its own page cache.
Bug 660044 has a WIP patch that might be interesting.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.