From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:54:58 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] box: use replicaset.vclock in replica join/subscribe Message-ID: <20181126175458.GE7839@chai> References: <2ab0d1a4bf8a5050ad4ea764b5cab41fd1d5968d.1543152574.git.vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2ab0d1a4bf8a5050ad4ea764b5cab41fd1d5968d.1543152574.git.vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-ID: * Vladimir Davydov [18/11/26 10:27]: > Again, this is something that was introduced by commit f2bccc18485d > ("Use WAL vclock instead of TX vclock in most places") without any > justification. > > TX has its own copy of the current vclock - there's absolutely no need > to inquire it from the WAL thread. Actually, we already use TX local > vclock in box_process_vote(). No reason to treat join/subscribe any > different. Moreover, it's even harmful - there may be a gap at the end > of a WAL file, in which case WAL vclock will be slightly ahead of TX > vclock so that should a replica try to subscribe it would never finish > syncing, see #3830. OK to push. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia, +7 903 626 22 32 http://tarantool.io - www.twitter.com/kostja_osipov