[DOCS-14626] [SERVER] Creating a collection on standalone node that was part of a replica set may lead to fassert Created: 06/Jul/21 Updated: 29/Oct/23 Resolved: 24/Jan/23 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Documentation |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Backlog - Core Eng Program Management Team | Assignee: | Dave Cuthbert (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | manual, server | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||
| Days since reply: | 1 year, 2 weeks, 1 day ago | ||||||||
| Epic Link: | DOCSP-11701 | ||||||||
| Description |
|
ORIGINAL TITLE: Investigate changes in Downstream Change Summary If the following sequence of events occurs: 1. Node n in replica set is restarted as standalone In this case, the collection created on n in standalone mode would have a different UUID compared to the rest of the replica set. As a result, any subsequent operations on that collection would lead to an fassert. Should we update the docs around creating a replicated collection in standalone mode to inform users of this potential issue? This may help inform users about having collections with mismatched UUIDs. Thank you! Description of Linked TicketIf the following sequence of events occurs:
In this case, the collection created on n in standalone mode would have a different UUID compared to the rest of the replica set. As a result, any subsequent operations on that collection would lead to an fassert. To help alleviate this, one idea is require an explicit UUID when creating this new collection, if the node is currently in standalone mode but was previously part of a replica set. Alternatively, we can add warning logs when the node attempts to create replicated collections in standalone mode. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Githook User [ 24/Jan/23 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Dave Cuthbert', 'email': '69165704+davemungo@users.noreply.github.com', 'username': 'davemungo'}Message:
|
| Comment by Githook User [ 24/Jan/23 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Dave Cuthbert', 'email': '69165704+davemungo@users.noreply.github.com', 'username': 'davemungo'}Message:
|
| Comment by Githook User [ 24/Jan/23 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Dave Cuthbert', 'email': '69165704+davemungo@users.noreply.github.com', 'username': 'davemungo'}Message:
|
| Comment by Githook User [ 24/Jan/23 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Dave Cuthbert', 'email': '69165704+davemungo@users.noreply.github.com', 'username': 'davemungo'}Message:
|
| Comment by Githook User [ 23/Jan/23 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Dave Cuthbert', 'email': '69165704+davemungo@users.noreply.github.com', 'username': 'davemungo'}Message:
|