Tomás Fernández Löbbe created SOLR-10751:
--------------------------------------------

             Summary: Master/Slave IndexVersion conflict
                 Key: SOLR-10751
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10751
             Project: Solr
          Issue Type: Bug
      Security Level: Public (Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
    Affects Versions: master (7.0)
            Reporter: Tomás Fernández Löbbe
            Assignee: Tomás Fernández Löbbe


I’ve been looking at some failures in the replica types tests. One strange 
failure I noticed is, master and slave share the same version, but have 
different generation. The IndexFetcher code does more or less this:
{code}
masterVersion = fetchMasterVersion()
masterGeneration = fetchMasterGeneration()

if (masterVersion == 0 && slaveGeneration != 0 && forceReplication) {
   delete my index
   commit locally
   return
} 
if (masterVersion != slaveVersion) {
  fetchIndexFromMaster(masterGeneration)
} else {
  //do nothing, master and slave are in sync.
}
{code}
The problem I see happens with this sequence of events:

delete index in master (not a DBQ=*:*, I mean a complete removal of the index 
files and reload of the core)
replication happens in slave (sees a version 0, deletes local index and commit)
add document in master and commit

if the commit in master and in the slave happen at the same millisecond*, they 
both end up with the same version, but different indices. 
I think that in addition of checking for the same version, we should validate 
that slave and master have the same generation and If not, consider them not in 
sync, and proceed to the replication.
True, this is a situation that's difficult to happen in a real prod environment 
and it's more likely to affect tests, but I think the change makes sense. 




--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to