Committed to trunk and 1.0.x.

On Aug 7, 2010, at 8:33 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:

> http://github.com/tilgovi/couchdb/tree/fixlostcommits
> 
> Test and fix in separate commits at the end of that branch, based off
> current trunk.
> Would appreciate verification that the test is initially broken but
> fixed by the patch.
> 
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 17:16, Damien Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I reproduced this manually:
>> 
>> Create document with id "x", ensure full commit (simply wait longer than 1 
>> sec, say 2 secs).
>> 
>> Attempt to create document "x" again, get conflict error.
>> 
>> Wait at least 2 secs to ensure the delayed commit attempt happens.
>> 
>> Now create document "y".
>> 
>> Wait at least 2 secs because the delayed commit should happen
>> 
>> Restart server.
>> 
>> Document "y" is now missing.
>> 
>> The last delayed commit isn't happening. From then on out, no docs updated 
>> with delayed commit with be available after a restart.
>> 
>> -Damien
>> 
>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe it's a single delayed conflict write attempt and no successes in 
>>> that same interval.
>>> 
>>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Looks like all that's necessary is a single delayed conflict write 
>>>> attempt, and all subsequent delayed commits won't be commit, the header 
>>>> never gets written.
>>>> 
>>>> 1.0 loses data. This is ridiculously bad.
>>>> 
>>>> We need a test to reproduce this and fix.
>>>> 
>>>> -Damien
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Good sleuthing guys, and my apologies for letting this through.  Randall, 
>>>>> your patch in COUCHDB-794 was actually fine, it was my reworking of it 
>>>>> that caused this serious bug.
>>>>> 
>>>>> With respect to that gist 513282, I think it would be better to return 
>>>>> Db#db{waiting_delayed_commit=nil} when the headers match instead of 
>>>>> moving the cancel_timer() command as you did.  After all, we did perform 
>>>>> the check here -- it was just that nothing needed to be committed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Adam
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, I think it requires 2 conflicting writes in row, because it needs 
>>>>>> to trigger the delayed_commit timer without actually having anything to 
>>>>>> commit, so the header never changes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Try to reproduce this and add a test case.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Damien
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think you may be right, Damien.
>>>>>>> If ever a write happens that only contains conflicts while waiting for
>>>>>>> a delayed commit message we might still be cancelling the timer. Is
>>>>>>> this what you're thinking? This would be the fix:
>>>>>>> http://gist.github.com/513282
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 15:42, Damien Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think the problem might be that 2 conflicting write attempts in row 
>>>>>>>> can leave the #db.waiting_delayed_commit set but the timer has been 
>>>>>>>> cancelled. One that happens, the header may never be written, as it 
>>>>>>>> always thinks a delayed commit will fire soon.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Damien
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 11:56, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I agree completely! I immediately thought of this because I wrote 
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> change. I spent a while staring at it last night but still can't
>>>>>>>>>> imagine how it's a problem.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 11:12, Damien Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> SVN commit r954043 looks suspicious. Digging further.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -Damien
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I still want to stare at r954043, but it looks to me like there's at
>>>>>>>>> least one situation where we do not commit data correctly during
>>>>>>>>> compaction. This has to do with the way we now use the path to sync
>>>>>>>>> outside the couch_file:process. Check this diff:
>>>>>>>>> http://gist.github.com/513081
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Reply via email to