[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3620?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Francesco Nigro updated ARTEMIS-3620:
-------------------------------------
Description:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3605, part of ARTEMIS-3327, has
introduced a blocking logic while checking for record's presence on both delete
and update operations, regardless the configured {{sync}} parameter.
Before the mentioned change, the journal was using {{checkKnownRecordID}} to
check for record presence that can save blocking in the happy (and most common)
path:
{code:java}
private boolean checkKnownRecordID(final long id, boolean strict) throws
Exception {
if (records.containsKey(id) || pendingRecords.contains(id) || (compactor
!= null && compactor.containsRecord(id))) {
return true;
}
final SimpleFuture<Boolean> known = new SimpleFutureImpl<>();
// retry on the append thread. maybe the appender thread is not keeping
up.
appendExecutor.execute(new Runnable() {
@Override
public void run() {
journalLock.readLock().lock();
try {
known.set(records.containsKey(id)
|| pendingRecords.contains(id)
|| (compactor != null && compactor.containsRecord(id)));
} finally {
journalLock.readLock().unlock();
}
}
});
if (!known.get()) {
if (strict) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Cannot find add info " + id + " on
compactor or current records");
}
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
{code}
There are 3 solutions to this issue:
# reintroduce {{checkKnownRecordID}} and save blocking in the common & happy
path
# introduce a smaller semantic change that don't report any error with no sync
and no callback specified
# introduce a bigger semantic change that don't report any error due to missing
record ID to delete/update
was:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3605, part of ARTEMIS-3327, has
introduced a blocking logic while checking for record's presence on both delete
and update operations, regardless the configured {{sync}} parameter.
Before the mentioned change, the journal was using {{checkKnownRecordID}} to
check for record presence that can save blocking in the happy (and most common)
path:
{code:java}
private boolean checkKnownRecordID(final long id, boolean strict) throws
Exception {
if (records.containsKey(id) || pendingRecords.contains(id) || (compactor
!= null && compactor.containsRecord(id))) {
return true;
}
final SimpleFuture<Boolean> known = new SimpleFutureImpl<>();
// retry on the append thread. maybe the appender thread is not keeping
up.
appendExecutor.execute(new Runnable() {
@Override
public void run() {
journalLock.readLock().lock();
try {
known.set(records.containsKey(id)
|| pendingRecords.contains(id)
|| (compactor != null && compactor.containsRecord(id)));
} finally {
journalLock.readLock().unlock();
}
}
});
if (!known.get()) {
if (strict) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Cannot find add info " + id + " on
compactor or current records");
}
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
{code}
There are 3 solutions to this issue:
# reintroduce {{checkKnownRecordID}} and save blocking with no sync
# introduce a smaller semantic change that don't report any error with no sync
and no callback specified
# introduce a bigger semantic change that don't report any error due to missing
record ID to delete/update
> Journal blocking delete/update record with no sync
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARTEMIS-3620
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3620
> Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Francesco Nigro
> Assignee: Francesco Nigro
> Priority: Minor
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3605, part of ARTEMIS-3327,
> has introduced a blocking logic while checking for record's presence on both
> delete and update operations, regardless the configured {{sync}} parameter.
> Before the mentioned change, the journal was using {{checkKnownRecordID}} to
> check for record presence that can save blocking in the happy (and most
> common) path:
> {code:java}
> private boolean checkKnownRecordID(final long id, boolean strict) throws
> Exception {
> if (records.containsKey(id) || pendingRecords.contains(id) ||
> (compactor != null && compactor.containsRecord(id))) {
> return true;
> }
> final SimpleFuture<Boolean> known = new SimpleFutureImpl<>();
> // retry on the append thread. maybe the appender thread is not keeping
> up.
> appendExecutor.execute(new Runnable() {
> @Override
> public void run() {
> journalLock.readLock().lock();
> try {
> known.set(records.containsKey(id)
> || pendingRecords.contains(id)
> || (compactor != null && compactor.containsRecord(id)));
> } finally {
> journalLock.readLock().unlock();
> }
> }
> });
> if (!known.get()) {
> if (strict) {
> throw new IllegalStateException("Cannot find add info " + id + "
> on compactor or current records");
> }
> return false;
> } else {
> return true;
> }
> }
> {code}
> There are 3 solutions to this issue:
> # reintroduce {{checkKnownRecordID}} and save blocking in the common & happy
> path
> # introduce a smaller semantic change that don't report any error with no
> sync and no callback specified
> # introduce a bigger semantic change that don't report any error due to
> missing record ID to delete/update
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
