Skip to content
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

storage: fail commands outside the replica GC threshold #6992

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 4, 2016
Merged

storage: fail commands outside the replica GC threshold #6992

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 4, 2016

Conversation

maddyblue
Copy link
Contributor

@maddyblue maddyblue commented Jun 1, 2016

This change is Reviewable

@maddyblue
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is blocked on a decision by #6985.

@bdarnell
Copy link
Contributor

bdarnell commented Jun 3, 2016

#6985 was decided in favor of allowing the inconsistency, on the grounds that it is self-healing. This change could introduce non-self-healing inconsistencies. However, queries near the GC cutoff would be so buggy prior to this change that I'm not sure if we care.

LGTM

Previously, mjibson (Matt Jibson) wrote…

This is blocked on a decision by #6985.


Review status: 0 of 2 files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion, all commit checks successful.


storage/replica_test.go, line 5640 [r1] (raw file):

  // Verify a later Get works.
  if _, err := tc.SendWrappedWith(roachpb.Header{
      Timestamp: makeTS(3, 0),

Put the timestamp(3,0) in a variable to make sure it's the same both times it's used.


Comments from Reviewable

@tbg
Copy link
Member

tbg commented Jun 3, 2016

:lgtm:

Previously, bdarnell (Ben Darnell) wrote…

#6985 was decided in favor of allowing the inconsistency, on the grounds that it is self-healing. This change could introduce non-self-healing inconsistencies. However, queries near the GC cutoff would be so buggy prior to this change that I'm not sure if we care.

LGTM


Review status: 0 of 2 files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions, all commit checks successful.


storage/replica_test.go, line 5642 [r1] (raw file):

      Timestamp: makeTS(3, 0),
  }, &gArgs); err != nil {
      t.Fatalf("could not get data: %s", err)

Add similar tests for a ConditionalPut. I expect this to work (since executeBatch is called from executeWriteBatch), but it should be asserted.


Comments from Reviewable

@tbg
Copy link
Member

tbg commented Jun 3, 2016

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions, all commit checks successful.


Comments from Reviewable

@maddyblue
Copy link
Contributor Author

Review status: 1 of 2 files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions, some commit checks pending.


storage/replica_test.go, line 5640 [r1] (raw file):

Previously, bdarnell (Ben Darnell) wrote…

Put the timestamp(3,0) in a variable to make sure it's the same both times it's used.

Done.

storage/replica_test.go, line 5642 [r1] (raw file):

Previously, tschottdorf (Tobias Schottdorf) wrote…

Add similar tests for a ConditionalPut. I expect this to work (since executeBatch is called from executeWriteBatch), but it should be asserted.

Done.

Comments from Reviewable

@tbg
Copy link
Member

tbg commented Jun 3, 2016

:lgtm:

Previously, tschottdorf (Tobias Schottdorf) wrote…

:lgtm:


Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion, all commit checks successful.


Comments from Reviewable

@maddyblue maddyblue merged commit 081f91c into cockroachdb:master Jun 4, 2016
@maddyblue maddyblue deleted the storage-time-replica branch June 4, 2016 00:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants