[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13959217#comment-13959217
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-5570:
-----------------------------------------
after looking on the bug that lead to this issue I'd have appreciated to get a
FNF exception rather than 0-byte files to begin with. The trappieness of sync
and the stale files map is one thing which we can fix in a different issue IMO.
But the 0-byte files we should get fixed right away. I also thinkg that it
might be ok to throw an exception if you wanna sync a file that was not written
through this directory?
> FSDirectory's fsync() is lenient
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5570
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5570
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/store
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-5570.patch
>
>
> This method has a lot of problems:
> 1. it tracks 'stale files' as it writes (this seems pointless), and only
> actually fsyncs the intersection of that 'stale files' and the filenames
> passed as argument to sync(). So any bogus names passed to sync() are just
> silently ignored
> 2. if "something bad happens" (e.g. two indexwriters/dirs on the same path,
> or some other shenanigans), and the file is actually in stale files, but was
> say actually deleted on the filesystem, the underlying fsync() call will
> create a new 0-byte file and fsync that.
> In my opinion we should do none of this. we should throw exceptions when this
> stuff is wrong.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
