ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Retries in write-behind store
Date Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:09:33 GMT

I see your point, but I still think it should be incorporated into the

First of all, your solution implies changing the CacheStore implementation
every time you switch between write-through and write-behind. This
contradicts with the overall design.

Second of all, one of the most commonly used implementations is the POJO
store which is provided out of the box. Moreover, usually users take
advantage of automatic integration feature and generate the config using
Web Console, so they often don't even know what "CacheJdbcPojoStore" is.

Said that, your suggestion works as a workaround, but it doesn't seem to be
very user-friendly. I actually like Gaurav's idea - instead of blindly
limiting number of retries we can have a callback to handle errors.


On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>

> Since the write-behind store wraps the store provided by a user, I think
> the correct solution would be to catch the exception and not propagate it
> further in the store, because only the end-user knows which errors can be
> retried, and which errors cannot.
> In this case no changes in the write-behind logic is needed.
> ср, 29 авг. 2018 г. в 7:14, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Is there a way to limit or disable retries of failed updates in the
> > write-behind store? I can't find one, it looks like if an update fails,
> it
> > is moved to the end of the queue and then eventually retried. If it fails
> > again, process is repeated.
> >
> > Such behavior *might* be OK if failures are caused by database being
> > temporarily unavailable. But what if update fails deterministically, for
> > example due to a constraint violation? There is absolutely no reason to
> > retry it, and at the same time it can cause stability and performance
> > issues when buffer is full with such "broken" updates.
> >
> > Does it makes sense to add an option that would allow to limit number of
> > retries (or even disable them)?
> >
> > -Val
> >

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