From: Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: Serge Petrenko <sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>,
Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] limbo: introduce request processing hooks
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 18:48:08 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YOxkOGgxt/V8sSXN@grain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YOwOy7kGop3Vq3ao@grain>
Guys, there are some moments even in current code structure which
looks somehow strange so I would like to discuss them. Lets consider
the following case: one replic sends us a promote request (assume
we're sitting in term 2 and max term is 2).
applier 1
---------
applier_apply_tx
(promote term = 3
current max term = 2)
applier_synchro_filter_tx
apply_synchro_row
journal_write
(sleeping)
at this moment another applier comes in with obsolete
data and term 2
applier 2
---------
applier_apply_tx
(term 2)
applier_synchro_filter_tx
txn_limbo_is_replica_outdated -> false
journal_write (sleep)
applier 1
---------
journal wakes up
apply_synchro_row_cb
set max term to 3
return to applier read and
applier 2 could finish its write
and wake up too
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?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-12 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-10 22:28 Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-11 14:00 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-11 18:22 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 8:03 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 8:09 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 21:20 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 22:32 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-13 19:32 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 8:01 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 8:04 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 8:12 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 8:23 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 21:20 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 22:34 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 9:43 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 15:48 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches [this message]
2021-07-12 16:49 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 17:04 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 21:20 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 21:52 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-07-12 7:54 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YOxkOGgxt/V8sSXN@grain \
--to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=sergepetrenko@tarantool.org \
--cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \
--subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] limbo: introduce request processing hooks' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox