From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp10.mail.ru (smtp10.mail.ru [94.100.181.92])
 (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 A2E3D4696C3
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Sat, 11 Apr 2020 19:04:45 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1586273440.git.sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>
 <47c0ec5d7a4de7d47351e31211c6eb3a3491f844.1586273440.git.sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>
 <6336a973-02da-99c9-4942-762f02c2cb6d@tarantool.org>
 <769253CE-47DB-4FEF-BDB2-046799B15682@tarantool.org>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <bd6fa57f-3ee7-be36-bd70-cc9fc37a279a@tarantool.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 18:04:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <769253CE-47DB-4FEF-BDB2-046799B15682@tarantool.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v6 2/3] gc: rely on minimal vclock
 components instead of signatures
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Serge Petrenko <sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>
Cc: tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>

Hi! Thanks for the answers!

gc_add_checkpoint() and gc_consumer_advance() still use sum().
Is it ok?

I see gc_consumer_advance() compares vclocks of two neighbour
consumers using sum() to check tree's invariant, even though
the invariant is not related to sum() anymore.

Please, check all the other vclock_sum() invocations too,
just in case.