From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <korablev@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp57.i.mail.ru (smtp57.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.37])
 (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 C50C8469710
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri,  8 May 2020 01:37:24 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 22:37:23 +0000
From: Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20200507223723.GC13970@tarantool.org>
References: <cover.1588273848.git.korablev@tarantool.org>
 <5012bd8eb07b5379eb70aa777402c7cd566a3b34.1588273848.git.korablev@tarantool.org>
 <959a3f72-6b95-30b1-c838-3b9e2bebc04c@tarantool.org>
 <20200507130256.GB11724@tarantool.org>
 <20200507141653.GA7782@atlas>
 <5c69fa0a-3ec3-95d7-b286-ce58e327bc10@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5c69fa0a-3ec3-95d7-b286-ce58e327bc10@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: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

On 07 May 23:47, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> On 07/05/2020 16:16, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> > * 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.
> 
> Is there a test case and an issue on that? Nikita, could you please
> find it/file it/confirm it/reject it?

I've found this issue:
https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4474