[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-702?page=comments#action_12457858 ]
Ning Li commented on LUCENE-702:
> This is actually intentional: I don't want to write to the same
> segments_N filename, ever, on the possibility that a reader may
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-702?page=comments#action_12457691 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-702:
---
Thanks for the review Ning!
> 1 In the two rollbacks in mergeSegments (where inTransaction is
> false), the
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-702?page=comments#action_12457520 ]
Ning Li commented on LUCENE-702:
It looks good. My two cents:
1 In the two rollbacks in mergeSegments (where inTransaction is false), the
segmentInfos' generation
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-702?page=comments#action_12448006 ]
Ning Li commented on LUCENE-702:
> I think we should try to make all of the addIndexes calls (and more
> generally any call to Lucene) "transactional".
Agree. A tr
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-702?page=comments#action_12447968 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-702:
---
I think we should try to make all of the addIndexes calls (and more
generally any call to Lucene) "transactio
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-702?page=comments#action_12446376 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-702:
---
That seems like a reasonable approach? At least the index would be
consistent (ie, loadable).
Though, if y
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-702?page=comments#action_12446307 ]
Ning Li commented on LUCENE-702:
A possible solution to this issue is to check, when writing segment infos to
"segments" in directory d,
whether dir of a segment i
