-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
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
Fix issues in advanceNonDurableCursors #10667
Fix issues in advanceNonDurableCursors #10667
Conversation
Do we have tests that exercise explicitly this code? |
@eolivelli yes in general but don't have a test to replicate this specific issue. Attempted to replicate issue in test but no a clear way how to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Lgtm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Co-authored-by: Jerry Peng <jerryp@splunk.com>
Co-authored-by: Jerry Peng <jerryp@splunk.com> (cherry picked from commit a244ed3)
Co-authored-by: Jerry Peng <jerryp@splunk.com>
Co-authored-by: Jerry Peng <jerryp@splunk.com>
Cherry-pick this to branch-2.7, because we need to cherry-pick #12602, it relies on this patch. |
Motivation
There are a couple of issues in advanceNonDurableCursors
This happens because highestPositionToDelete calculated when the reader/consumer is caught up is going to be higher than the last confirmed for the of the managed ledger. There is also no point in trying to advance the mark delete position if the reader/consumer is caught up.