[SERVER-34158] Require 'stmtId' field be present on all commands as part of multi-statement transactions Created: 27/Mar/18 Updated: 06/Dec/22 Resolved: 06/May/19 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Replication |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Spencer Brody (Inactive) | Assignee: | Backlog - Replication Team |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Assigned Teams: |
Replication
|
||||||||||||
| Sprint: | Repl 2018-04-09 | ||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||
| Description |
|
This will be required once we support retrying individual operations within a transaction, so we should require it now to avoid changing the API requirements in the future |
| Comments |
| Comment by Gregory McKeon (Inactive) [ 06/May/19 ] |
|
We won't fix this until the linked project is designed. |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 13/Apr/18 ] |
|
I think for 4.0 we should require 'stmtId' specifically, and we can add support for stmtIds as part of supporting sharded transactions. |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 13/Apr/18 ] |
|
As part of this, we should add the check that was left out of |
| Comment by Tess Avitabile (Inactive) [ 13/Apr/18 ] |
|
spencer, should we require either stmtId or stmtIds to be present? The latter is needed for sharded transactions. |