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

Stale Read checks include comparing node's Applied Index with Leader Commit Index #1673

Open
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

otoolep
Copy link
Member

@otoolep otoolep commented Feb 6, 2024

No description provided.

@otoolep
Copy link
Member Author

otoolep commented Feb 6, 2024

#1672

@otoolep otoolep changed the title Record latest Leader commit index Stale Read checks include comparing node's Applied Index with Leader Commit Index Feb 6, 2024
store/store.go Outdated
@@ -1806,7 +1807,8 @@ func (s *Store) isStaleRead(freshness int64) bool {
if freshness == 0 || s.raft.State() == raft.Leader {
return false
}
return time.Since(s.raft.LastContact()).Nanoseconds() > freshness
return time.Since(s.raft.LastContact()).Nanoseconds() > freshness &&
s.raft.CommitIndex() == s.DBAppliedIndex()

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Having s.raft.CommitIndex() == s.DBAppliedIndex() makes the condition too strict, especially for large updates that can still finish within the allowed freshness.

Could we instead add aTime field in Store that gets updated to LastContact when there is no new index, and when there is, to whenever the index gets applied?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I noticed s.DBAppliedIndex() is protected by a mutex. Would it make sense to replace it with a https://pkg.go.dev/sync/atomic#Uint64?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, you're the second person to suggest this. @jtackaberry did too.

Makes sense, but I'll do that in a separate PR.

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.

2 participants