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

Bad range order in abstract_replication_strategy::get_ranges() #3872

Closed
avikivity opened this Issue Oct 19, 2018 · 0 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@avikivity
Contributor

avikivity commented Oct 19, 2018

abstract_replication_strategy::get_ranges() can return ranges that are not sorted as expected, if a wrapped range is present.

tgrabiec added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 19, 2018

locator: fix abstract_replication_strategy::get_ranges() and friends …
…violating sort order

get_ranges() is supposed to return ranges in sorted order. However, a351365
broke this and returned the range that was supposed to be last in the second
position (e.g. [0, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]). The broke cleanup, which
relied on the sort order to perform a binary search. Other users of the
get_ranges() family did not rely on the sort order.

Fixes #3872.
Message-Id: <20181019113613.1895-1-avi@scylladb.com>

avikivity added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 19, 2018

locator: fix abstract_replication_strategy::get_ranges() and friends …
…violating sort order

get_ranges() is supposed to return ranges in sorted order. However, a351365
broke this and returned the range that was supposed to be last in the second
position (e.g. [0, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]). The broke cleanup, which
relied on the sort order to perform a binary search. Other users of the
get_ranges() family did not rely on the sort order.

Fixes #3872.
Message-Id: <20181019113613.1895-1-avi@scylladb.com>

avikivity added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 19, 2018

locator: fix abstract_replication_strategy::get_ranges() and friends …
…violating sort order

get_ranges() is supposed to return ranges in sorted order. However, a351365
broke this and returned the range that was supposed to be last in the second
position (e.g. [0, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]). The broke cleanup, which
relied on the sort order to perform a binary search. Other users of the
get_ranges() family did not rely on the sort order.

Fixes #3872.
Message-Id: <20181019113613.1895-1-avi@scylladb.com>

(cherry picked from commit 1ce52d5)

avikivity added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 19, 2018

locator: fix abstract_replication_strategy::get_ranges() and friends …
…violating sort order

get_ranges() is supposed to return ranges in sorted order. However, a351365
broke this and returned the range that was supposed to be last in the second
position (e.g. [0, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]). The broke cleanup, which
relied on the sort order to perform a binary search. Other users of the
get_ranges() family did not rely on the sort order.

Fixes #3872.
Message-Id: <20181019113613.1895-1-avi@scylladb.com>

(cherry picked from commit 1ce52d5)

avikivity added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 19, 2018

locator: fix abstract_replication_strategy::get_ranges() and friends …
…violating sort order

get_ranges() is supposed to return ranges in sorted order. However, a351365
broke this and returned the range that was supposed to be last in the second
position (e.g. [0, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]). The broke cleanup, which
relied on the sort order to perform a binary search. Other users of the
get_ranges() family did not rely on the sort order.

Fixes #3872.
Message-Id: <20181019113613.1895-1-avi@scylladb.com>

(cherry picked from commit 1ce52d5)

avikivity added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 19, 2018

locator: fix abstract_replication_strategy::get_ranges() and friends …
…violating sort order

get_ranges() is supposed to return ranges in sorted order. However, a351365
broke this and returned the range that was supposed to be last in the second
position (e.g. [0, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]). The broke cleanup, which
relied on the sort order to perform a binary search. Other users of the
get_ranges() family did not rely on the sort order.

Fixes #3872.
Message-Id: <20181019113613.1895-1-avi@scylladb.com>

(cherry picked from commit 1ce52d5)

avikivity added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 23, 2018

locator: fix abstract_replication_strategy::get_ranges() and friends …
…violating sort order

get_ranges() is supposed to return ranges in sorted order. However, a351365
broke this and returned the range that was supposed to be last in the second
position (e.g. [0, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]). The broke cleanup, which
relied on the sort order to perform a binary search. Other users of the
get_ranges() family did not rely on the sort order.

Fixes #3872.
Message-Id: <20181019113613.1895-1-avi@scylladb.com>

(cherry picked from commit 1ce52d5)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment