From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [87.239.111.99] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D0D6EC55; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 20:05:22 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org 95D0D6EC55 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tarantool.org; s=dev; t=1626109522; bh=CaIeBFoGr70OjdNOhmxGBFIEVnaH88ShTnWoc3vGOc8=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=WgDVzwqe7Um+X8gy/lLbYKMYBc1Q6BPiRsSyQ0ZlnGQWS6HvGwaMEdnO7iG8W6c0/ le+tJiR9h06ZuHSj1qiAlfx8zEiGIaAM5p2B9rfBum0ROrh4OdGrQ+TYkgvqfU3rEk 5MImI4KmO9ForHS03YOlRzrOtJ0TwrWV3EJov8y0= Received: from mail-lj1-f180.google.com (mail-lj1-f180.google.com [209.85.208.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 218386EC55 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 20:05:21 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org 218386EC55 Received: by mail-lj1-f180.google.com with SMTP id a18so25354084ljk.6 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:05:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=qKdnqi/MLMjBdmki22zOK2NkSPysMvOEn/bdYzFUfRo=; b=dc8w6DiFHuEx0t/RnUk6hzRFxGRP8XWlBS2wZ5rNDlj7KYby/Xm3QASu0MwBLdl9gi JL3LVIdX7mqcc3pSmxLHTFTOaTefMtFJT7MblzTRMDjh84jZfgPEwwNLAH4FWDI5B17L +1f+inrPmS7/CEh9tdM+l7xtFGs+ZcsGRjyLq0HXDX3hPQH8g/7MJB1GuczJTTM8tgus xj+dlKOled9tYKbHcsp3q0z0XWhbk1IwVW35IMgp2SqDFmngQe/TXVn2L+JWMsg2u11c Q/ARbOf0VSBvrtg9LvlSrQb1X0zcikc9QF0wOgDeLmhnEZhwJTEJb/Iu/z283S3pUOnQ Er6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Qmb1epnR1l8pFdo8EgEyHlx/iN3l6xo96Xnk1xWXAlPvvwF+M IasTnhJUci0xHKwrREx/q6qCSmj0T0Hnpw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwoaVodQB2+RY7EW67tix9QNdbFqA7EJpaEg6GaeW4CCwDfpqpw5nCZzkU+6cEIXtMxoBOmA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:111b:: with SMTP id d27mr143004ljo.387.1626109519967; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grain.localdomain ([5.18.199.94]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q15sm26976lfd.94.2021.07.12.10.04.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by grain.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 84C735A001E; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 20:04:45 +0300 (MSK) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 20:04:45 +0300 To: Serge Petrenko Cc: Vladislav Shpilevoy , tml Message-ID: References: <20210710222803.253251-1-gorcunov@gmail.com> <187d1ae2-99cb-50d4-d5b4-18aa6c5f5546@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.7 (2021-05-04) Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] limbo: introduce request processing hooks X-BeenThere: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches Reply-To: Cyrill Gorcunov Errors-To: tarantool-patches-bounces@dev.tarantool.org Sender: "Tarantool-patches" On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 07:49:49PM +0300, Serge Petrenko wrote: > > > > at this moment the data from applier 2 is actually queued > > for write as valid but we just wrote the term 3, so if we would > > had been updating terms map earlier (before jornal write) the data > > from applier 2 should be NOPified. I think there is some problem > > because due to journal write lag the data is not as it could be > > if terms map updated early. Serge, Vlad, am I right? Which consequences > > can be here? IOW, should not we track terms earlier even without > > my filter series? > Looks like a bug, indeed. > > We may either introduce a limbo latch or start tracking terms before the > WAL write. > > I'm starting to like the idea with limbo latch more. > > It's come up a couple of times already for various occasions, so maybe it's > time to finally implement it. Yeah, I think this fully incorporates into the my filter+apply stages and I'll address the latching there then. Thanks!