New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fetch / Count might fail if executed on a relocated shard. #4273
Labels
Comments
ghost
assigned s1monw
Nov 27, 2013
Here is an example exception showing the issue
|
s1monw
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 27, 2013
When we relocate a shard we might still have pending SearchContext instances hanging around that will be used in "in-flight" searches on the already relocated shard. This is a valid operation but if we have already closed the underlying directory which happens during cleanup concurrently the close call on the IndexReader can trigger an AlreadyClosedException when the NRT reader tries to cleanup files via the IndexWriter. Closes #4273
mute
pushed a commit
to mute/elasticsearch
that referenced
this issue
Jul 29, 2015
When we relocate a shard we might still have pending SearchContext instances hanging around that will be used in "in-flight" searches on the already relocated shard. This is a valid operation but if we have already closed the underlying directory which happens during cleanup concurrently the close call on the IndexReader can trigger an AlreadyClosedException when the NRT reader tries to cleanup files via the IndexWriter. Closes elastic#4273
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
When we relocate a shard we might still have pending SearchContext
instances hanging around that will be used in "in-flight" searches
on the already relocated shard. This is a valid operation but if
we have already closed the underlying directory which happens during
cleanup concurrently the close call on the IndexReader can trigger
an AlreadyClosedException when the NRT reader tries to cleanup files
via the IndexWriter. This kind of smells like a bug in Lucene, a close should never throw that exception IMO
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: