[DOCS-14255] Clarification needed in doc regarding multi-shard transactions in a cluster contains arbiters. Created: 26/Feb/21  Updated: 30/Oct/23  Due: 05/Mar/21  Resolved: 04/Apr/23

Status: Closed
Project: Documentation
Component/s: manual, Server
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: Server_Docs_20231030

Type: Task Priority: Major - P3
Reporter: Tom Li Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Won't Do Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Participants:
Days since reply: 44 weeks, 1 day ago
Epic Link: DOCSP-11701
Story Points: 2

 Description   

Description

Customer reported problems performing multi-shard transactions in a cluster that contains arbiters in the shards. This limitation is clearly mentioned in some sections of our documentation, eg here which directly states:

Transactions whose write operations span multiple shards will error and abort if any transaction operation reads from or writes to a shard that contains an arbiter.

However, other sections of the documentation are much less clear on the matter. For example, customer linked this page which states:

A transaction that writes to multiple shards errors if any of the transaction’s read or write operations involves a shard that has disabled read concern "majority".

The above implies that such an operation (transaction writing to multiple shards) would be successful if read concern majority had not been disabled.

I suggest that we specifically state out that the "Transactions whose write operations span multiple shards will error and abort if any transaction operation reads from or writes to a shard that contains an arbiter." in the disable-read-concern-majority part of the doc, to clarify the limitations.

Scope of changes

Impact to Other Docs

MVP (Work and Date)

Resources (Scope or Design Docs, Invision, etc.)



 Comments   
Comment by Sarah Olson [ 04/Apr/23 ]

Closing this out on the grounds that:

  • Details of this request are significantly outdated. 
  • Our documentation has evolved substantially since this request was made. 

Based on this, closing as WON'T DO. Please don't hesitate to give me a shout or to reopen if you disagree.

Comment by Sarah Olson [ 17/Aug/22 ]

Hi tom.li@mongodb.com, can you help me the the priority for this ticket? I am going to revert this to unassigned, as Andrew hasn't been here for a little while. The ticket will live in the Server team's bugfix backlog and someone will pick it up as time allows. If you think this needs a higher priority, please let me know and we can get this assigned accordingly. 

Generated at Thu Feb 08 08:09:54 UTC 2024 using Jira 9.7.1#970001-sha1:2222b88b221c4928ef0de3161136cc90c8356a66.