From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 9423124E44 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iOCXyNEczJfb for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id 463301FD40 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 21:37:07 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] replication: force gc to clean xdir on ENOSPC err Message-ID: <20180710183707.GE22105@chai> References: <31d0178970ffb16aa02d245585d6fb9e4b4ffea2.1530815780.git.k.belyavskiy@tarantool.org> <20180706170023.GA29935@chai> <1531235432.907548046@f506.i.mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1531235432.907548046@f506.i.mail.ru> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: Konstantin Belyavskiy Cc: tarantool-patches * Konstantin Belyavskiy [18/07/10 19:19]: > Rebase to 1.10 - ok. > > Using relay_stop() makes sense only with replica_on_relay_stop(), since > relay_stop() itself actually do nothing with consumers. > Regarding replica_on_relay_stop(), replica should be in "orphan" mode > to avoid assertion in replica_delete(). And also there is a problem with > monitoring, since replica will leave replication cluster and thus silent the error. > > On other hand, in case of implementation based on removing consumer, > replica, if being active again, will get an LSN gap and we will see an error. This not a problem - it will rejoin once rejoin is in the trunk. > > 1. Please give feedback on this section. > 2. If not using relay_stop(), which branch use as a base 1.9 or 1.10? 1.10 > >Could you write a test with two > >"abandoned" replicas, each holding an xlog file? > Which xlog, the same one or different for each replicas? Different one. I know I skipped some questions - let's discuss the rest separately, hope the above answers help. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia, +7 903 626 22 32 http://tarantool.io - www.twitter.com/kostja_osipov