Hi all,
I've got a minor problem that I think deals with synchronization .
I've got asynchronous socket code working on my server. When it
recieves a command, it will call the follow function to perform an
asynchronous SQL query on my database:
SyncLock pgConn
strSQL = "SELECT * FROM usertable"
pgCommand = New CoreLab.Postgre Sql.PgSqlComman d(strSQL, pgConn)
pgDataReader = pgCommand.Begin ExecuteReader(A ddressOf
dbQueryReturn, _netclient, CommandBehavior .Default)
End SyncLock
But here is my problem. The asynch command is saving the result to
pgDataReader, which is privately declared in the module (yes, module.
Bad coding practice :D ). I'm figuring that is bad, as all the
results will be stored there and overwrite the last.
So, I'm in a quandry. Can I put another SyncLock in the callback
delegate (dbQueryReturn) on the pgDataReader to prevent other threads
from modifying it until it is copyied to a local variable? Wouldn't
that negate the benefit of asynch programming though?
Should I create a new class instance for each DB query, and keep the
dataobjects in there? I was avoiding that because that is a lot of
additional overhead (a string, command and reader object per query,
plus the class overhead itself).
Should I keep a "pool" of datareaders privately declared in the
module? As they are used, I can change a state property for each
object to used, and pass the index as the state object for the asynch
call. Then on the callback delegate, the state object is used to get
the datareader object from the pool. When it is done, the object is
returned to "free" state. Would also allow me to dynamically increase
or decrease the number of pooled readers, depending on load (and thus
save some memory)
Last idea. Would it be possible to create a new DataReader object,
then pass as the state object? Or is that not a "legal move"?
Thanks, I really appreciate it.
I've got a minor problem that I think deals with synchronization .
I've got asynchronous socket code working on my server. When it
recieves a command, it will call the follow function to perform an
asynchronous SQL query on my database:
SyncLock pgConn
strSQL = "SELECT * FROM usertable"
pgCommand = New CoreLab.Postgre Sql.PgSqlComman d(strSQL, pgConn)
pgDataReader = pgCommand.Begin ExecuteReader(A ddressOf
dbQueryReturn, _netclient, CommandBehavior .Default)
End SyncLock
But here is my problem. The asynch command is saving the result to
pgDataReader, which is privately declared in the module (yes, module.
Bad coding practice :D ). I'm figuring that is bad, as all the
results will be stored there and overwrite the last.
So, I'm in a quandry. Can I put another SyncLock in the callback
delegate (dbQueryReturn) on the pgDataReader to prevent other threads
from modifying it until it is copyied to a local variable? Wouldn't
that negate the benefit of asynch programming though?
Should I create a new class instance for each DB query, and keep the
dataobjects in there? I was avoiding that because that is a lot of
additional overhead (a string, command and reader object per query,
plus the class overhead itself).
Should I keep a "pool" of datareaders privately declared in the
module? As they are used, I can change a state property for each
object to used, and pass the index as the state object for the asynch
call. Then on the callback delegate, the state object is used to get
the datareader object from the pool. When it is done, the object is
returned to "free" state. Would also allow me to dynamically increase
or decrease the number of pooled readers, depending on load (and thus
save some memory)
Last idea. Would it be possible to create a new DataReader object,
then pass as the state object? Or is that not a "legal move"?
Thanks, I really appreciate it.