[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-3790?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15969577#comment-15969577
]
Andrew Purtell edited comment on PHOENIX-3790 at 4/14/17 9:53 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------------
[~giacomotaylor] [~gjacoby] Wouldn't it be fair to say if there is an index
defined on a Phoenix table then a durability hint of SKIP_WAL can just be
ignored? The Durability thing is just a hint, that WAL entries are not
_required_. If there are indexes, we could require them nonetheless. Something
to think about.
was (Author: apurtell):
[~giacomotaylor] [~gjacoby] Wouldn't it be fair to say if there is an index
defined on a Phoenix table then a mutation with durability of SKIP_WAL can just
be ignored? The Durability thing is just a hint, that WAL entries are not
_required_. If there are indexes, we could require them nonetheless. Something
to think about.
> Execute cross region index maintenance calls outside of row lock when WAL
> edits are disabled
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-3790
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-3790
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: James Taylor
>
> A corner case related to PHOENIX-3789. Non transactional, mutable secondary
> index maintenance relies on the the WAL edit as state so that the actual
> index writes can be done later. When WAL edits are disabled, the writes to
> the index table are done in the preBatchMutation while the row locks are
> still held which should be avoided.
> This can be fixed by either leveraging a way of passing state between
> coprocessor hooks (which I'm not sure exists) or through thread locals as a
> last resort.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
