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