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 B5995301C7 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 23:54:32 -0500 (EST) 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 8fbZuGCc3nu9 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 23:54:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp46.i.mail.ru (smtp46.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.106]) (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 09CAB301C6 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 23:54:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 07:54:28 +0300 From: Kirill Yukhin Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 0/2] Re-implement rowid generation for ephemeral spaces Message-ID: <20181115045428.6njxyxzsycxjnowo@tarantool.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: tarantool-patches@freelists.org Cc: v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org, Nikita Pettik Hello, On 29 Oct 22:02, Nikita Pettik wrote: > Branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/np/gh-3297-ephemeral-rowid > Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/3297 > > This patch-set fixes incorrect rowid generation for ephemeral spaces. > To achieve this, we introduce separate method in space's vtab, > which currently available only for memtx engine (as well as ephemeral > spaces). It simply increments built-in counter and returs new rowid. > It allows us to get rid of calling index_max() which obviously was > wrong way at calcucaling next id (since rowid field is taken to be > last in stored tuples). I've checked in the patch set into 2.1 branch. -- Regards, Kirill Yukhin