-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.cloudera.org/r/1224/#review1937
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


I believe the TestHLog failure noted was on our Hudson. If so it is unrelated 
to this change. 

- Andrew


On 2010-11-15 23:09:52, Gary Helmling wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://review.cloudera.org/r/1224/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2010-11-15 23:09:52)
> 
> 
> Review request for hbase and Ryan Rawson.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Fix for MemStore.upsert(KeyValue) to start the kvset.tailSet() of potential 
> KVs to remove at the beginning of entries for the row/family/qualifier 
> combination, ignoring timestamp to prevent Puts being skipped based on 
> timestamp alone and masking the ICV.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug HBASE-3235.
>     http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3235
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MemStore.java b7409b0 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestHRegion.java 7640997 
> 
> Diff: http://review.cloudera.org/r/1224/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Added a new test: 
> TestHRegion.testIncrementColumnValue_UpdatingInPlace_TimestampClobber() to 
> recreate the existing failure condition: 1) put to a row/family/qualifier, 2) 
> ICV to the same row/family/qualifier with the same timestamp.  This test 
> fails consistently without the patch to MemStore.
> 
> With the patch to MemStore, the new test case consistently passes.  I also 
> ran TestHRegion 15+ times and saw no more intermittent failures of 
> testIncrementColumnValue_UpdatingInPlace().  Previously this was failing 
> every 5 or so test runs, so this seems a pretty good indication it's fixed.
> 
> I also ran through the full test suite on 0.90 and all passed except for an 
> error in TestHLog...
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gary
> 
>

Reply via email to