[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-407?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13458488#comment-13458488
]
Aniruddha commented on BOOKKEEPER-407:
--------------------------------------
I don't think that helps. We don't hold a lock on topicsForHost while updating
topic2Host. Right after the host.equals(topic2Host.get..) statement, someone
might call replace() and we would still be in an inconsistent state. I think
it's okay to have the inverse mapping inconsistent so long as we have to deal
only with false positives(host2Topics entry has a topic for which that host is
not responsible). What do you think?
> Hedwig client doesn't remove old topic2Host mapping in case of redirect
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-407
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-407
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 4.2.0
> Reporter: Aniruddha
> Fix For: 4.2.0
>
> Attachments: BK-407.patch, BOOKKEEPER-407.diff
>
>
> In the storeTopic2HostMapping function, there is a topic2Host.putIfAbsent().
> This doesn't seem correct as we should always update the mapping in case of a
> redirect.
> Reviewboard : https://reviews.apache.org/r/7139/
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
