[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-26619?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18039849#comment-18039849
]
Vladislav Pyatkov commented on IGNITE-26619:
--------------------------------------------
I ran this test multiple times and did not get a consistency exception.
Also, I do not expect the exception would be there because in implicit RO we do
not use the observation timestamp. Instead of it, the transaction uses an
actual timestamp in the primary replica (get()) or is based on RW transaction
internally for batch operation (getAll()).
> Implicit client ro tx does not include observableTimestamp
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-26619
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-26619
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: thin clients ai3
> Affects Versions: 3.0
> Reporter: Pavel Tupitsyn
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: ignite-3
> Fix For: 3.2
>
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> * In thin client protocol, explicit read-only transactions propagate
> *observableTimestamp*
> * However, read operations without an explicit transaction *do not* send
> *observableTimestamp*, so implicit RO TX has different behavior
> ** Inconsistent behavior can be observed when consequent read requests for
> the same key go to different nodes. This can happen on connection failure or
> due to round-robing in thin client when primary replica connection is not
> available
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
