[SERVER-62196] Replace raw pointer Collection access with shared_ptr Created: 20/Dec/21 Updated: 07/Feb/22 Resolved: 07/Feb/22 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Dianna Hohensee (Inactive) | Assignee: | Dianna Hohensee (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Won't Do | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Sprint: | Execution Team 2022-02-21 | ||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||
| Description |
|
I'm wondering whether we really need to maintain separate access functions that return raw pointer vs shared_ptr to Collection instances from the CollectionCatalog. Could we simplify code by always using shared_ptr? We're moving in that direction anyway, removing locks and supporting versioned instances and copy-on-write. I suspect that any small performance gain of using a raw pointer instead of a shared_ptr might could irrelevant, if it exists. On the other hand, it would simplify our code to use shared_ptr consistently. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Dianna Hohensee (Inactive) [ 07/Feb/22 ] |
|
Chatted with Henrik and concluded that we actually might want the opposite, to move towards raw pointers. Closing this, and going to do some cleanup and provide clarity in |