cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus Eriksson (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-9949) maxPurgeableTimestamp needs to check memtables too
Date Mon, 18 Jan 2016 16:15:39 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9949?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15105471#comment-15105471
] 

Marcus Eriksson commented on CASSANDRA-9949:
--------------------------------------------

The approach looks good to me, two comments;

* could you rephrase [this comment|https://github.com/stef1927/cassandra/blob/aabec6bab0d4558b7ce9bfbdec17909ff0b90bc9/src/java/org/apache/cassandra/db/AtomicBTreeColumns.java#L474-L476]?
I don't get why we can't use the reconciled version.
* We should probably check the memtable min timestamp in CompactionController.getFullyExpiredSSTables
as well

> maxPurgeableTimestamp needs to check memtables too
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-9949
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9949
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Local Write-Read Paths
>            Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
>            Assignee: Stefania
>             Fix For: 2.2.x, 3.0.x, 3.x
>
>
> overlapIterator/maxPurgeableTimestamp don't include the memtables, so a very-out-of-order
write could be ignored



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message