From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f65.google.com (mail-lf1-f65.google.com
 [209.85.167.65])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4B8546970E
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:40:49 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lf1-f65.google.com with SMTP id 9so20797688lfq.10
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri, 27 Dec 2019 06:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:40:47 +0300
From: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20191227144047.GA5637@atlas>
References: <cover.1576443171.git.sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>
 <1577451369.509620710@f196.i.mail.ru>
 <20191227133127.GA29577@atlas>
 <1577454514.172951629@f509.i.mail.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1577454514.172951629@f509.i.mail.ru>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 4/5] vclock: ignore 0th component in
 comparisons.
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <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: Sergey Petrenko <sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>
Cc: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>, tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>

* Sergey Petrenko <sergepetrenko@tarantool.org> [19/12/27 16:52]:
> >The anonymous replica would still have to find  a legal slot in
> >vclock for its own changes, but this would be a standard slot. 
> If I understand you correctly, this implies some kind of replica id remapping.
> Otherwise no one guarantees that a non-anonymous instance with same id
> won't be added later. Also we can use anonymous replicas in a cluster with
> 32 "normal" replicas. Where to find a valid slot then?

Right :/, well then, I guess it's better to reserve an id for an
anonymous replica. 0 id is reserved already though.

-- 
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia