Avoid deadlocks with dropAllTablesAndClose() and concurrently started transactions

Closes #76 (closed)

sorry, the branch has the wrong number, ticket is #76 (closed), but branch has 78- prefix

added Mailbox label

Those tests do not make sure that the actions of the threads started concurrently get to call their methods in the order as they are defined here. They should work in whatever order the threads execute, however they also don't make any strong assertions on what is going to happen.

For example it is possible for addOwnerToken() to be executed first and succeed in both test cases. If it gets executed after one of the dropAllTablesAndClose() it will fail with a DbException. In the second test one of the dropAllTablesAndClose() should fail while the other should succeed. Actually, that seems like something we could assert.

added 1 commit

• 5dd1d52d - Avoid deadlocks with dropAllTablesAndClose() and concurrently started transactions

Compare with previous version

Maybe @grote you could check if the problem you encountered with the command line client are gone when you try again with this branch? Thanks!

added 1 commit

• 6531fbf2 - Avoid deadlocks with dropAllTablesAndClose() and concurrently started transactions

Compare with previous version

changed the description

added Sponsor 6 label and removed Mailbox label

added 1 commit

• 3f66afd0 - Avoid deadlocks with dropAllTablesAndClose() and concurrently started transactions

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• ecab8334 - Avoid deadlocks with dropAllTablesAndClose() and concurrently started transactions

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• a9540ca8 - Use withLock{} in JdbcDatabase

Compare with previous version

added 12 commits

• a9540ca8...5b150ad0 - 10 commits from branch main
• 5c88df6f - Avoid deadlocks with dropAllTablesAndClose() and concurrently started transactions
• 5712ac7c - Use withLock{} in JdbcDatabase

Compare with previous version