From issues-return-116471-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@hive.apache.org Fri May 4 02:00:05 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E847180625 for ; Fri, 4 May 2018 02:00:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 28349 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2018 00:00:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hive.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hive.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list issues@hive.apache.org Received: (qmail 28340 invoked by uid 99); 4 May 2018 00:00:04 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 May 2018 00:00:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id BB81CC05A9 for ; Fri, 4 May 2018 00:00:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.311 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pqEcUvc-hZ3X for ; Fri, 4 May 2018 00:00:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 771305F5DF for ; Fri, 4 May 2018 00:00:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id CA121E0338 for ; Fri, 4 May 2018 00:00:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 9B69C212A2 for ; Fri, 4 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Eugene Koifman (JIRA)" To: issues@hive.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16463211#comment-16463211 ] Eugene Koifman commented on HIVE-18570: --------------------------------------- HIVE-18570.03.patch updates some golden files > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions > Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin > Assignee: Eugene Koifman > Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.01.patch, HIVE-18570.02-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.02.patch, HIVE-18570.03-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.03.patch, HIVE-18570.04-branch-3.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)