-
Type:
Bug
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Priority:
Major - P3
-
Affects Version/s: None
-
Component/s: None
-
Storage Execution NAMER
-
Fully Compatible
-
v7.2, v7.0, v6.0, v5.0, v4.4
-
Execution Team 2023-05-29, Execution Team 2023-06-12, Execution NAMR Team 2023-06-26, Execution NAMR Team 2023-07-10, Execution NAMR Team 2023-07-24, Execution NAMR Team 2023-08-07, Execution NAMR Team 2023-10-02, Execution Team 2023-12-11, Execution Team 2023-12-25
-
(copied to CRM)
-
135
-
None
-
3
-
None
-
None
-
None
-
None
-
None
-
None
-
None
It looks like as of 4.2 the renameCollection command supports doing a rename - even with dropTarget: true - with only a MODE_IX lock, not MODE_X as is currently taken. At the very least, that lock acquisition could use a comment indicating why MODE_X is required.
I think if we change the DB lock to MODE_X, we'll need to acquire both collection locks in MODE_X (and in the right order) to inspect and verify the index catalog and collection options, but that should be fine and is an improvement.
- is depended on by
-
SERVER-73040 Ban all lock upgrades
-
- Closed
-
- is related to
-
-
- Closed
-
- related to
-
-
- Backlog
-