ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anton Vinogradov ...@apache.org>
Subject Re: IGNITE-4188, savepoints with atomic cache?
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:29:13 GMT
Vote for #2 since it can shed light on hidden bug at production.

ср, 13 июн. 2018 г. в 18:10, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:

> Igniters,
>
> Bumping up this discussion. The fix has been implemented and it is fine
> from the technical point of view, but since the fix did not make it to the
> Ignite 2.0, the implemented fix [1] now will be a breaking change for
> current Ignite users.
>
> I see the following options:
> 1) Have the fix merged, but do not change the defaults - atomic caches will
> still be allowed in transactions by default and only configuration change
> will make Ignite throw exceptions in this case
> 2) Have the fix merged as is and describe this change in the release notes
> 3) Postpone the fix until Ignite 3.0
>
> I would vote for option #1 and change only the defaults in Ignite 3.0.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313
>
> ср, 5 апр. 2017 г. в 22:53, Дмитрий Рябов <somefireone@gmail.com>:
>
> > IGNITE-2313 done, can you review it?
> >
> > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1709/files
> > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313
> > CI: http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
> > IgniteTests_RatJavadoc&branch_IgniteTests=pull%2F1709%
> > 2Fhead&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
> >
> > 2017-03-29 20:58 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Sorry, I get lost in tickets.
> > >
> > > Yes, IGNITE-2313 has to be completed in 2.0 if we want to makes this
> > > change.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > > On Mar 29, 2017, at 2:12 AM, Дмитрий Рябов <somefireone@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Savepoints marked for 2.1, exceptions for 2.0. Do you want me to make
> > > > exceptions first?
> > > >
> > > > 2017-03-29 11:24 GMT+03:00 Дмитрий Рябов <somefireone@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > >> Finish savepoints or flag&exceptions for atomic operations?
> > > >> Not sure about savepoints. Exceptions - yes. https://issues.apache.
> > > >> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313 isn't it?
> > > >>
> > > >> 2017-03-29 2:12 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> > > >>
> > > >>> If we want to make the exception based approach the default one
> then
> > > the
> > > >>> task has to be released in 2.0.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Dmitriy Ryabov, do you think you can finish it (dev, review, QA)
by
> > the
> > > >>> code freeze data (April 14)?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> —
> > > >>> Denis
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > >>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I think updating an Atomic cache from within a transaction
> > perfectly
> > > >>> makes
> > > >>>>> sense. For example for some kind of operations logging
and so
> > forth.
> > > >>> Still
> > > >>>>> I agree that this can be error prone and forbidden by
default. I
> > > agree
> > > >>> with
> > > >>>>> Yakov that by default we should throw an exception and
have some
> > kind
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>> flag (on cache or on TX?) to be able to explicitly enable
this
> > > >>> behavior.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Agree, this sounds like a good idea.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message