From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 8AC442A582 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:30:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BplOjjnR2RJ7 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:30:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp16.mail.ru (smtp16.mail.ru [94.100.176.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id BD22A2A57E for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:30:08 -0400 (EDT) From: =?utf-8?B?0JPQtdC+0YDQs9C40Lkg0JrQuNGA0LjRh9C10L3QutC+?= Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH] Raise an error if remote transaction produces non-local changes Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 23:30:00 +0300 Message-ID: <5947874.l9K1koqIfE@home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20190320154002.GE6612@chai> References: <20190320154002.GE6612@chai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6714415.0x8XAXWlHX"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: Konstantin Osipov Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org --nextPart6714415.0x8XAXWlHX Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:40:02 PM MSK Konstantin Osipov wrote: > * Georgy Kirichenko [19/03/20 13:23]: > > + if (txn->n_remote_rows > 0 && stmt->row->replica_id == 0 && > > + stmt->space->def->opts.group_id != GROUP_LOCAL) { > > + diag_set(ClientError, ER_UNSUPPORTED, > > + "transaction", "mixing local and remote changes"); > > + goto fail; > > + } > > Would it be possible to move this check to the applier so that it > does not affect the main scenario? I think it would be ugly because in that case applier should deeply invade into the txn. Also there is a technical restriction - at this point applier has no chance to do anything after operation is applied in case of autocommit and I think it is really a txn scope of responsibility. If you wish I could do a little investigation whether there exists a performance degradation or not. --nextPart6714415.0x8XAXWlHX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEFB+nbqWGnp59Rk9ZFSyY70x8X3sFAlySosgACgkQFSyY70x8 X3tH7gf+NgyNXjSl3i2/rvNbIpXIJMGl3JwIsFECDWF2rap8N7RLdxZY3GsGTCry 8CIH80boYFLAZ3+7oUgY6pY4nYkPQQN4k7iYVg9kZhwsoDJ01J1FxcXlM0qsoe/7 BZhRCfIQ2tQ+RWVGgvmXb95VD4ra4suSyt1oVq0EiPsiXTip0SJ32rTjm3DjTGEC RmXfPdmVUqYTpcPY16aqbPjGcQA9V8nM8RrPr0UhODDlssVm4OXt9ErFRmp1EYEx 8MdFWCV4uzYOwye08Rxhx+ACzqtodc4vQHXX2Vp1tbhU/xB28AnELmnhNn2vT9vq zjVTJHEcsjHF09ozavGW2N5Klgy1Jw== =stBI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart6714415.0x8XAXWlHX--