[SERVER-38910] Remove redundant rollback handling on index drops Created: 09/Jan/19 Updated: 29/Oct/23 Resolved: 09/Feb/21 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Storage |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 4.9.0 |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Dianna Hohensee (Inactive) | Assignee: | Dianna Hohensee (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | techdebt | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Fully Compatible | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | Storage NYC 2019-01-14, Execution Team 2021-02-22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Linked BF Score: | 137 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
With the completion of I believe this code in kv_storage_engine.cpp does the special handling and can now be eliminated safely. And in this bit, it should also be safe to refactor away the "!foundIdent" piece. Dan G's explanation of that scenario was as follows, which won't happen anymore either with " Note: A good way to test that those code paths are inactive might be to add some invariants that they never occur anymore and run a full evergreen patch. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Githook User [ 09/Feb/21 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Dianna Hohensee', 'email': 'dianna.hohensee@mongodb.com', 'username': 'DiannaHohensee'}Message: This scenario can no longer occur because we wait for index drops to be majority |
| Comment by Dianna Hohensee (Inactive) [ 23/Jun/20 ] |
|
I think this ticket can be tried again. It doesn't look like there's been anything but logging format changes to the relevant code. I believe the issue described in the CR pertained to the v4.0->v4.2 upgrade path, where v4.0 didn't have two-phase index drop: this would no longer be a problem for v4.4->v4.6, since we've had two-phase drop since v4.2 (I think). Some extra testing might not go amiss, but I'm not sure whether it would be worth the trouble to test or not. |
| Comment by Dianna Hohensee (Inactive) [ 23/Jan/19 ] |
|
Found that it is FCV dependent whether the code can be removed. |