IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
(Cleaning "ensure we exit with non-zero status on EOF on socket"
after rebasing to v3-3-test which has no "make proto" anymore.)
Michael
(This used to be commit a958c6bf1e0394e98df286974d78d3b07498e0b4)
1) when all nodes write the same value to the record, or when writing
a value that is already there, we can skip the write and save
ourselves a network transactions
2) when all remote nodes fail an update, and we then fail a replay, we
don't need to trigger a recovery. This solves a corner case where
we could get into a recovery loop
(This used to be commit 2481bfce4307274806584b0d8e295cc7f638e184)
1. use the return value that idmap_tdb2_open_perm_db() gives us
2. don't delete frep the local db if deleting from the perm db failed.
3. fix wrong interpretation of return value of the local delete
Michael
(This used to be commit 147573d7f6faab0ad90258b6a28c4b9575ccb6ea)
1. use the return value that idmap_tdb2_open_perm_db() gives us
2. don't write to the local db if writing to the perm db failed.
3. fix wrong interpretation of return value of the local store
Michael
(This used to be commit be8c6b4f2f40014313899b5cbc1da9d390d94fee)
This is because ctdbd can fail in performing the persistent_store
due to race conditions, and this does not mean it can't succeed
the next time.
To not loop infinitely, this makes use of a new parametric option:
"dbwrap ctdb:max store retries" (integer) which defaults to 5
and sets the upper limit for the number or repeats of the
fetch/store cycle.
Michael
(This used to be commit 2bcc9e6ecef876030e552a607d92597f60203db2)
in the persistent db_ctdb_store operation.
This is to prevent deadlocks in db_ctdb_persistent_store().
There is a tradeoff: Usually, the record is still locked
after db->store operation. This lock is usually released
via the talloc destructor with the TALLOC_FREE to
the record. So we have two choices:
- Either re-lock the record after the call to persistent_store
or cancel_persistent update and this way not changing any
assumptions callers may have about the state, but possibly
introducing new race conditions.
- Or don't lock the record again but just remove the
talloc_destructor. This is less racy but assumes that
the lock is always released via TALLOC_FREE of the record.
I choose the first variant for now since it seems less racy.
We can't guarantee that we succeed in getting the lock
anyways. The only real danger here is that a caller
performs multiple store operations after a fetch_locked()
which is currently not the case.
Michael
(This used to be commit d004c9a7281d2577c3ba2012c8f790cc198ea700)
