dcapwell commented on code in PR #3842:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/3842#discussion_r1936388652
##########
src/java/org/apache/cassandra/service/accord/AccordConfigurationService.java:
##########
@@ -416,14 +415,18 @@ void maybeReportMetadata(ClusterMetadata metadata)
long epoch = metadata.epoch.getEpoch();
synchronized (epochs)
{
- if (epochs.maxEpoch() == 0)
+ long maxEpoch = epochs.maxEpoch();
+ if (maxEpoch == 0)
{
getOrCreateEpochState(epoch); // touch epoch state so
subsequent calls see it
reportMetadata(metadata);
return;
}
}
- getOrCreateEpochState(epoch - 1).acknowledged().addCallback(() ->
reportMetadata(metadata));
+
+ // Create a -1 epoch iif we know this epoch may actually exist
+ if (metadata.epoch.getEpoch() > minEpoch())
Review Comment:
why this change? this worries me. Making sure this protocol was safe took
a lot of effort, so adding this extra state into it makes me worry that we will
regress...
If TCM is reporting, we won't hit this... so only non-TCM reporting should
hit this... we should guard there IMO
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: pr-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: pr-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: pr-h...@cassandra.apache.org
