Commit adcd7be9 authored by unknown's avatar unknown

lock0lock.c:

  Remove outdated comment and the corresponding assertion in debug version code


innobase/lock/lock0lock.c:
  Remove outdated comment and the corresponding assertion in debug version code
parent 628c2c38
......@@ -83,10 +83,6 @@ x-lock also has an explicit non-gap record x-lock. Therefore, as locks are
released, we can grant locks to waiting lock requests purely by looking at
the explicit lock requests in the queue.
RULE 2: Granted non-gap locks on a record are always ahead in the queue
-------
of waiting non-gap locks on a record.
RULE 3: Different transactions cannot have conflicting granted non-gap locks
-------
on a record at the same time. However, they can have conflicting granted gap
......@@ -4271,7 +4267,6 @@ lock_rec_queue_validate(
{
trx_t* impl_trx;
lock_t* lock;
ibool is_waiting;
ut_a(rec);
......@@ -4332,8 +4327,6 @@ lock_rec_queue_validate(
}
}
is_waiting = FALSE;
lock = lock_rec_get_first(rec);
while (lock) {
......@@ -4346,8 +4339,6 @@ lock_rec_queue_validate(
}
if (!lock_rec_get_gap(lock) && !lock_get_wait(lock)) {
ut_a(!is_waiting);
if (lock_get_mode(lock) == LOCK_S) {
ut_a(!lock_rec_other_has_expl_req(LOCK_X,
......@@ -4359,7 +4350,6 @@ lock_rec_queue_validate(
} else if (lock_get_wait(lock) && !lock_rec_get_gap(lock)) {
is_waiting = TRUE;
ut_a(lock_rec_has_to_wait_in_queue(lock));
}
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment