directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: merging txn branch back into the trunk
Date Mon, 07 May 2012 22:50:19 GMT
Hi,

some few comnts inline...

Le 5/7/12 11:04 AM, Selcuk AYA a écrit :
> Hi All,
>
> ****CHANGES AFFECTING THE CURRENT  CODE*********
>
> *** The general motive is to implement a logical transaction layer
> above partitions. This transaction layer keeps a log of logical
> changes. It works above partitions and expects partitions to  conform
> to a certain data model and give some consistency guarantees:
>
>                         1) Partitions should expose a MasterTable which
> stores Entry objects. They also should expose the expected system
> indices and can expose user indices. Master and Index tables are
> basically (key, value) tables.
>                         2) Supported modification operations on Master
> and Index tables should be atomic
RdnIndex may be updated more than once when adding an entry, do to the 
1/SubLevel indexes. If this break atomicity, then we have to deal with 
that. (see below)
>
>
> ***Another goal in this effort was to move the operation execution
> logic above partitions so that transactions could be implemented
> independent of partitions with the above consistency guarantees.
> Towards this goal, DefaultOperationExecutionManager has been
> introduced. This mostly copies the logic in AbstractBTreePartition and
> executes updates on master tables and indices using log edits rather
> than direct updates on them. These log edits are then applied to
> partitions using the atomic modifications on Master and Index tables
> exposed by partitions. This class is where we really need to review
> well to ensure things are OK.
Ok, will review this.
> ******MERGING********
>
> - One and Sub level index removal will probably impact
> DefaultOperationExecutionManager.
The question is to what extent these changes will impact the code.
> - From emails, I understand the Index interface assuming UUID might be
> a problem with the recent changes. Maybe this needs to be changed too.
Hmm, not sure. Moving to get rid of any other type to use UUID instead 
is the right choice. All the indexes contains relation between a key and 
some Entry's UUIDs (forward index), and between an UUID and some keys 
(reverse index). The reverse index is used by the search engine.

Do you see any issue with that ?
>
>
> Either before or both before and after the merge, we should run a test
> with concurrent threads(read+write) and clear out any remaining
> issues.
Ok.
>
>
> *******TODO********
>
> After the merge, I will work on implementing crash recovery part which
> will complete the transactional layer changes.
Fine !

Great job !



-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com


Mime
View raw message