Hi! Thanks for your detailed answer!
I pushed v2 regarding all the comments.


>Четверг, 13 февраля 2020, 9:47 +03:00 от Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>:
>
>* sergepetrenko < sergepetrenko@tarantool.org > [20/02/13 09:34]:
>> Fix replicaset.applier.vclock initialization issues: it wasn't
>> initialized at all previously.
>
>In the next line you say that you remove the initialization. What
>do you mean here?
I changed both the commit and the commit message.

>
>
>> Moreover, there is no valid point in code
>> to initialize it, since it may get stale right away if new entries are
>> written to WAL.
>
>Well, it reflects the state of the wal *as seen by* the set of
>appliers. This is stated in the comment. So it doesn't have to
>reflect local changes. 
I see.
>
>
>> So, check for both applier and replicaset vclocks.
>> The greater one protects the instance from applying the rows it has
>> already applied or has already scheduled to write.
>> Also remove an unnecessary aplier vclock initialization from
>> replication_init().
>
>First of all, the race you describe applies to
>local changes only. Yet you add the check for all replica ids. 
>This further obliterates this piece of code.
Ok, fixed.
>
>
>Second, the core of the issue is a "hole" in vclock protection
>enforced by latch_lock/latch_unlock. Basically the assumption that
>latch_lock/latch_unlock has is that while a latch is locked, no
>source can apply a transaction under this replica id. This, is
>violated by the local WAL.
>
>We used to skip all changes by local vclock id before in applier.
>
>Later it was changed to be able to get-your-own logs on recovery,
>e.g. if some replica has them , and the local node lost a piece of
>wal.
>
>It will take me a while to find this commit and ticket, but this
>is the commit and ticket which introduced the regression.
>
>The proper fix is to only apply local changes received from
>remotes in orphan mode, and begin skipping them when entering
>read-write mode.
Thanks for the clarification.

>
>
>> Closes #4739
>> ---
>>  src/box/applier.cc     | 14 ++++++++++++--
>>  src/box/replication.cc |  1 -
>>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/src/box/applier.cc b/src/box/applier.cc
>> index ae3d281a5..acb26b7e2 100644
>> --- a/src/box/applier.cc
>> +++ b/src/box/applier.cc
>> @@ -731,8 +731,18 @@ applier_apply_tx(struct stailq *rows)
>>  	struct latch *latch = (replica ? &replica->order_latch :
>>  			       &replicaset.applier.order_latch);
>>  	latch_lock(latch);
>> -	if (vclock_get(&replicaset.applier.vclock,
>> -		       first_row->replica_id) >= first_row->lsn) {
>> +	/*
>> +	 * We cannot tell which vclock is greater. There is no
>> +	 * proper place to initialize applier vclock, since it
>> +	 * may get stale right away if we write something to WAL
>> +	 * and it gets replicated and then arrives back from the
>> +	 * replica. So check against both vclocks. Replicaset
>> +	 * vclock will guard us from corner cases like the one
>> +	 * above.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (MAX(vclock_get(&replicaset.applier.vclock, first_row->replica_id),
>> +		vclock_get(&replicaset.vclock, first_row->replica_id)) >=
>> +	    first_row->lsn) {
>>  		latch_unlock(latch);
>>  		return 0;
>>  	}
>> diff --git a/src/box/replication.cc b/src/box/replication.cc
>> index e7bfa22ab..7b04573a4 100644
>> --- a/src/box/replication.cc
>> +++ b/src/box/replication.cc
>> @@ -93,7 +93,6 @@ replication_init(void)
>>  	latch_create(&replicaset.applier.order_latch);
>> 
>>  	vclock_create(&replicaset.applier.vclock);
>> -	vclock_copy(&replicaset.applier.vclock, &replicaset.vclock);
>>  	rlist_create(&replicaset.applier.on_rollback);
>>  	rlist_create(&replicaset.applier.on_commit);
>> 
>> -- 
>> 2.20.1 (Apple Git-117)
>
>-- 
>Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia


-- 
Sergey Petrenko