Apparently, there is an assumption in this computation that the bookie sees
entries in sequence.
When ES>WQ bookie won't see them in sequence. I guess I need to understand
what you are trying to
do with in-memory cursor at the bookie. In our protocol, only the
client(writer) will have the complete
Il sab 21 apr 2018, 09:11 Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri ha
scritto:
> Sorry, maxEntryId can't be used for LAC. Let me review the patch and
> respond tomorrow. :)
> I was mostly thinking of sync-on-close which is my use case. Intermittent
> syncs will need a more robust way to define the LAC.
>
Than
Sorry, maxEntryId can't be used for LAC. Let me review the patch and
respond tomorrow. :)
I was mostly thinking of sync-on-close which is my use case. Intermittent
syncs will need a more robust way to define the LAC.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri <
jujj...@gmail.com>
@Enrico I thought I had a pretty simple view on this.
1. No ensemble changes allowed on a ledger in this mode.
2. A sync is sent to all bookies on the ensemble and it is required that
the sync must be successful to proceed forward.
3. Sync and Write are serialized. or sync can return maxEntryId.
4.
