Re: WAL iterator unexpected behavior

Dmitriy, Sorry, my mistake, I meant unknown exception of course. On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > I got a bit confused by your initial statement. So, the iterator is stopped > in case of any exception, known or unknown. In that case, sounds good. > > D. > > On Sun,

Re: WAL iterator unexpected behavior

I got a bit confused by your initial statement. So, the iterator is stopped in case of any exception, known or unknown. In that case, sounds good. D. On Sun, Jun 3, 2018, 12:11 Dmitriy Govorukhin wrote: > Dmitriy, > > The iterator will be stopped. and method "it.next()" will throw the >

Re: WAL iterator unexpected behavior

Dmitriy, The iterator will be stopped. and method "it.next()" will throw the exception. On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Dmitriy, what happens in case of unknown exceptions? > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com>

Re: WAL iterator unexpected behavior

Dmitriy, what happens in case of unknown exceptions? On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Dmitriy Govorukhin < dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > I created the issue to solve this issue. > > IGNITE-8661 > WALItreater > is not

Re: WAL iterator unexpected behavior

Folks, I created the issue to solve this issue. IGNITE-8661 WALItreater is not stopped if can not deserialize record I suggest to make the following changes: 1. We should only stop iteration on known exceptions 2. Also, need to provide ability

Re: WAL iterator unexpected behavior

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Dmitriy Govorukhin < dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dmitriy, > > I agree that in normal mode we should stop and report that error according. > I prefer to add ability skip records for offline mode. > Sounds good.

Re: WAL iterator unexpected behavior

Dmitriy, I agree that in normal mode we should stop and report that error according. I prefer to add ability skip records for offline mode. On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Dmitriy, > > I think the behavior for offline and online iterator is fundamentally >

Re: WAL iterator unexpected behavior

Dmitriy, I think the behavior for offline and online iterator is fundamentally different. I do not think it is OK to skip records during normal operation. In my view, we should report an error and stop. However, when offline, it is OK to report an error and continue in my view. D. On Wed, May

Re: WAL iterator unexpected behavior

Yakov, This problem is not for offline only, it applicable for all types of the iterators. In general, iterator does not know which class will be needed for deserialization. I guess we can expand WAL Iterator factory and provide a method for creating the iterator with some filter, which will

Re: WAL iterator unexpected behavior

This is for offline WAL analysis. So skipping record with proper message is also a solution. If it is possible, iterator should output a suggestion on what is missing in classpath. Option to suppress warnings should also present. Makes sense? And final question - did we look at similar utilities