cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stefania (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-9949) maxPurgeableTimestamp needs to check memtables too
Date Tue, 19 Jan 2016 07:45:39 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9949?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15106398#comment-15106398
] 

Stefania commented on CASSANDRA-9949:
-------------------------------------

Thank you for your review [~krummas], please see [this commit| https://github.com/stef1927/cassandra/commit/96dacb1c2f555d34753901e48fecf1f8f0190393].

I've clarified the comment best I could and added a test to show what I mean. If it still
doesn't make much sense to you, perhaps we should just change the test and pick the reconciled
timestamp. I must admit I am not 100% sure of what's best.

I've updated {{CompactionController.getFullyExpiredSSTables()}} and added a unit test for
it.

> 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