Perhaps my diagram was not clear. I am starting with mutations on the base table. I assume they are not bundled together so from separate CQL statements.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:11 AM Claude Warren, Jr <claude.war...@aiven.io> wrote: > If each mutation comes from a separate CQL they would be separate, no? > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:17 AM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > >> If M1 and M2 both operate over the same partition key they won’t be >> separate mutations, they should be combined into a single mutation before >> submission to SP.mutate >> >> > On 19 Aug 2022, at 10:05, Claude Warren, Jr via dev < >> dev@cassandra.apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > # Table definitions >> > >> > Table [ Primary key ] other data >> > base [ A B C ] D E >> > MV [ D C ] A B E >> > >> > >> > # Initial data >> > base -> MV >> > [ a b c ] d e -> [d c] a b e >> > [ a' b c ] d e -> [d c] a' b e >> > >> > >> > ## Mutations -> expected outcome >> > >> > M1: base [ a b c ] d e' -> MV [ d c ] a b e' >> > M2: base [ a b c ] d' e -> MV [ d' c ] a b e >> > >> > ## processing bug >> > Assume lock can not be obtained during processing of M1. >> > >> > The mutation M1 sleeps to wait for lock. (Trunk Keyspace.java : 601 ) >> > >> > Assume M2 obtains the lock and executes. >> > >> > MV is now >> > [ d' c ] a b e >> > >> > M1 then obtains the lock and executes >> > >> > MV is now >> > [ d c ] a b e' >> > [ d' c] a b e >> > >> > base is >> > [ a b c ] d e' >> > >> > MV entry "[ d' c ] a b e" is orphaned >> > >> > >> >>
