[SERVER-3270] Add {closeDatabase: ...} command Created: 16/Jun/11 Updated: 14/Mar/17 Resolved: 25/Jun/15 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Admin |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | Trivial - P5 |
| Reporter: | Scott Hernandez (Inactive) | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | features, needs-design | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Add a command to close a database (not all databases) |
| Comments |
| Comment by Tad Marshall [ 28/Feb/12 ] |
|
This may be valuable and even required, but I don't think it is trivial. Do current operations get a time period to complete, or are they all killed immediately? What happens to running MR tasks, and how is the close communicated to them? What do list database operations show while the database is closed? When the external work (moving files) is done, how is the close released? Do we wait for replica secondaries in any cases? Is this allowed in a sharding situation, and are there limitations that need to be enforced? Can a closeDatabase request fail, and does it need a force:true option to push past a failure case? How can the smoke tests tell us if this feature is working and what situations do they need to test for? If auth is enabled, do we need anything new or does the current architecture do everything we want? |
| Comment by Scott Hernandez (Inactive) [ 28/Feb/12 ] |
|
Optionally this should allow locking/unlocking the database (for all operations) to allow background tasks like replacing the files in the FS |