[SERVER-32517] Parse readConcern snapshot and atClusterTime Created: 02/Jan/18 Updated: 30/Oct/23 Resolved: 23/Jan/18 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Storage |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 3.7.2 |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Tess Avitabile (Inactive) | Assignee: | Tess Avitabile (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Fully Compatible | ||||||||||||
| Sprint: | Storage 2018-01-15, Storage 2018-01-29 | ||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Parse the following new syntax for readConcern:
Parsing for snapshot:
Parsing for atClusterTime:
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Githook User [ 23/Jan/18 ] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Author: {'name': 'Tess Avitabile', 'email': 'tess.avitabile@mongodb.com', 'username': 'tessavitabile'}Message: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comment by Tess Avitabile (Inactive) [ 04/Jan/18 ] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sure, we can hold off on the shell API for snapshot reads. It's not clear to me from the Local Snapshot Reads scope whether we will support readConcern:snapshot on writes outside of transactions. We are also going to discuss whether we will support any use of readConcern:snapshot outside of transactions. Is there any reason to hold off on accepting readConcern level snapshot for write commands in the server? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 04/Jan/18 ] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hmm... are we planning to support readConcern on regular, non-transactional write operations? If the answer is no, as I suspect it is, then it may make sense to hold off on designing the shell API for snapshot reads until we have a better idea what the shell API for transactions will look like. For instance, I could easily foresee a design where running a transaction in the shell looks something like this:
In that world, I'm not sure that the individual write operations in the shell would ever need to take a readConcern argument at all. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comment by Tess Avitabile (Inactive) [ 04/Jan/18 ] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Proposal for new syntax for shell helpers. This matches the placement of writeConcern. milkie, james.wahlin, spencer, please take a look. Operations:
CRUD API:
Bulk write API: (
|