From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <korablev@tarantool.org>
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 dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 570304429A8
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:39:31 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:39:30 +0300
From: Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20191017143930.GG23167@tarantool.org>
References: <cover.1570539526.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org>
 <4eb8f545449842bc4c468ccf50c494e4c44c32d6.1570539526.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org>
 <20191013125109.GA24391@atlas>
 <7114925b-190a-4f0d-409f-974d2e6a65dd@tarantool.org>
 <20191017135825.GF23167@tarantool.org>
 <20191017141234.GA10459@atlas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191017141234.GA10459@atlas>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] box:
 do not evaluate ck constraints on recovery
List-Id: Tarantool development <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>, tarantool-patches@freelists.org, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, kshcherbatov@tarantool.org

On 17 Oct 17:12, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org> [19/10/17 17:06]:
> > You made is_force_recovery be global. However, there's a lot of functions
> > taking force_recovery param. Please, refactor them: remove that argument
> > and use instead global status. What is more, you don't set is_force_recovery
> > to false after recovery process is finished. What is more, AFAIR we discussed
> > replacement of memtx_recovery_state with one global state shared among
> > all engines (instead, you added is_recovery_complete).
> 
> Why do you think that now that there is a global state it would be
> good to use it everywhere?

Em, I don't see any pros of duplicating global state by passing it
as a parameter to functions. Meanwile using local version of force_recovery
may turn out to be confusing (at least for developers looking into code).

> Besides, given that now there is is_force_recovery and
> is_recovery_complete, maybe have:
> 
> engine_is_force_recovery() 
> engine_is_recovery_complete() 
> 
> declared in engine.h, rather than directly access global
> variables?

It's OK.