From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp52.i.mail.ru (smtp52.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.112]) (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 EE7FE43D678 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:01:14 +0300 (MSK) References: <99ef4fdb53bfd4fb1c47f2cf2ebb0f333761506e.1570639218.git.georgy@tarantool.org> From: Vladislav Shpilevoy Message-ID: <7d11e556-926a-86bb-d9ed-b458b487f0d4@tarantool.org> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 01:06:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <99ef4fdb53bfd4fb1c47f2cf2ebb0f333761506e.1570639218.git.georgy@tarantool.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3 1/4] relay: adjust gc state on relay status update List-Id: Tarantool development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, Georgy Kirichenko , tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Thanks for the patch! On 09/10/2019 18:45, Georgy Kirichenko wrote: > Don't use on_close_log trigger to track xlog file boundaries. As we > intend implement in-memory replication relay could have no more xlog > file operations and couldn't rely on previous trigger invocations. Now > the consumer state is advanced together with relay vclock. After > parallel applier implementation relay wouldn't receive an ACK packet for > each transaction (because an applier groups them) so it should not be > too expensive to advance gc on each relay vclock update. > > Note: this changes cluster gc behavior - an instance gc will hold > only it's locally generated transaction. Also it is only a > temporary solution until relay processing would be merged with > a wal writer context when wal will process relay ACK requests > as well as log writing and redundancy evaluating. Sorry, I am still missing a reason why do you need to keep only local changes. This commit does not change GC behaviour - it breaks the GC. Also, I asked to write a test showing how non-local changes are removed even if they are not relayed to other instances yet. Since you are planning to return the old behaviour, anyway you would need a test, showing that it is restored.