From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f68.google.com (mail-lf1-f68.google.com
 [209.85.167.68])
 (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 904A7469710
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu,  7 May 2020 17:16:56 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lf1-f68.google.com with SMTP id x73so4624760lfa.2
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu, 07 May 2020 07:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 17:16:53 +0300
From: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20200507141653.GA7782@atlas>
References: <cover.1588273848.git.korablev@tarantool.org>
 <5012bd8eb07b5379eb70aa777402c7cd566a3b34.1588273848.git.korablev@tarantool.org>
 <959a3f72-6b95-30b1-c838-3b9e2bebc04c@tarantool.org>
 <20200507130256.GB11724@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200507130256.GB11724@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/2] vinyl: drop wasted runs in case
	range recovery fails
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: Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>

* Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org> [20/05/07 16:05]:
> > 
> > Reference counter looks like not a good information channel.
> > Could you use run->fd to check whether the run was really recovered?
> > vy_run_recover() leaves it -1, when fails.
> > 
> > Otherwise this won't work the second when we will ref the run anywhere
> > else.
> 
> Firstly, lsm at this point is not restored, ergo it is not functional
> and run can't be refed somewehere else - it's life span is clearly
> defined. Secondly, the problem is not in the last run (which failed to
> recover) but in those which are already recovered at the moment.
> Recovered runs feature valid fds. Finally, slice recover may fail
> not only in vy_run_recover(), but also due to oom, broken vylog etc.
> All these scenarios lead to the same situation.

It should be partially restored in case of force_recovery. It's
another bug force_recovery is not respected, I've been sending a
fix to the list a few months ago.

-- 
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia