99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
|
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
|
-
+
|
;; DOT INIT_RUNREMOTE; // leaving off - doesn't really add to the clarity
;; DOT MUTEXLOCK -> INIT_RUNREMOTE [label="no remote?"];
;; DOT INIT_RUNREMOTE -> MUTEXLOCK;
;; ensure we have a record for our connection for given area
(if (not runremote) ;; can remove this one. should never get here.
(begin
(set! *runremote* (make-remote))
(set! *runremote* (make-init-remote))
(let* ((server-info (remote-server-info *runremote*)))
(if server-info
(begin
(remote-server-url-set! *runremote* (server:record->url server-info))
(remote-server-id-set! *runremote* (server:record->id server-info)))))
(set! runremote *runremote*))) ;; new runremote will come from this on next iteration
|
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
|
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
|
-
+
|
;;DOT MUTEXLOCK -> CASE6 [label="on homehost,\nwrite query,\nhave server,\ncan't reach it"]; {rank=same "case 6" CASE6};
;;DOT CASE6 -> "rmt:send-receive";
;; on homehost and this is a write, we already have a server, but server has died
((and (cdr (remote-hh-dat runremote)) ;; on homehost
(not (member cmd api:read-only-queries)) ;; this is a write
(remote-server-url runremote) ;; have a server
(not (server:ping (remote-server-url runremote) (remote-server-id runremote)))) ;; server has died. NOTE: this is not a cheap call! Need better approach.
(set! *runremote* (make-remote))
(set! *runremote* (make-init-remote))
(let* ((server-info (remote-server-info *runremote*)))
(if server-info
(begin
(remote-server-url-set! *runremote* (server:record->url server-info))
(remote-server-id-set! *runremote* (server:record->id server-info)))))
(remote-force-server-set! runremote (common:force-server?))
(mutex-unlock! *rmt-mutex*)
|