[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-33?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12700290#action_12700290
]
Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-33:
-----------------------------------------
we do need the ability to read-repair CF and SC tombstones. I'll open a
separate ticket for that.
the reason the behavior retrieved.getColumn("Column1") == null is correct is,
if we've deleted the CF (more recently than the column!) then we don't care
what data used to be there, it should just be gone. what we need to RR is the
CF tombstone.
of course if there is a column tombstone _more_ recent than the CF tombstone
then it should be preserved.
> Bugs in tombstone handling in remove code
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-33
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-33
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
> Assignee: Jonathan Ellis
> Fix For: 0.3
>
> Attachments:
> 0001-preserve-tombstones-until-a-GC-grace-period-has-elap.patch,
> 0002-omit-tombstones-from-column_t-and-supercolumn_t-retu.patch,
> 0003-make-GC_GRACE_IN_SECONDS-customizable-in-storage.con.patch,
> 0004-and-5-v2.patch, 0004_expose_remove_bug.patch,
> 0005_fix_exposed_remove_bug.patch
>
>
> [copied from dev list]
> Avinash pointed out two bugs in my remove code. One is easy to fix,
> the other is tougher.
> The easy one is that my code removes tombstones (deletion markers) at
> the ColumnFamilyStore level, so when CassandraServer does read repair
> it will not know about the tombstones and they will not be replicated
> correctly. This can be fixed by simply moving the removeDeleted call
> up to just before CassandraServer's final return-to-client.
> The hard one is that tombstones are problematic on GC (that is, major
> compaction of SSTables, to use the Bigtable paper terminology).
> One failure scenario: Node A, B, and C replicate some data. C goes
> down. The data is deleted. A and B delete it and later GC it. C
> comes back up. C now has the only copy of the data so on read repair
> the stale data will be sent to A and B.
> A solution: pick a number N such that we are confident that no node
> will be down (and catch up on hinted handoffs) for longer than N days.
> (Default value: 10?) Then, no node may GC tombstones before N days
> have elapsed. Also, after N days, tombstones will no longer be read
> repaired. (This prevents a node which has not yet GC'd from sending a
> new tombstone copy to a node that has already GC'd.)
> Implementation detail: we'll need to add a 32-bit "time of tombstone"
> to ColumnFamily and SuperColumn. (For Column we can stick it in the
> byte[] value, since we already have an unambiguous way to know if the
> Column is in a deleted state.) We only need 32 bits since the time
> frame here is sufficiently granular that we don't need ms. Also, we
> will use the system clock for these values, not the client timestamp,
> since we don't know what the source of the client timestamps is.
> Admittedly this is suboptimal compared to being able to GC immediately
> but it has the virtue of being (a) easily implemented, (b) with no
> extra components such as a coordination protocol, and (c) better than
> not GCing tombstones at all (the other easy way to ensure
> correctness).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
