[SERVER-39064] Storage interface changes for specifying durable_timestamp Created: 17/Jan/19 Updated: 29/Oct/23 Resolved: 04/Feb/19 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Storage |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 4.1.8 |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Tess Avitabile (Inactive) | Assignee: | Xiangyu Yao (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 NYC 2019-02-11 | ||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||
| Story Points: | 3 | ||||||||||||
| Description |
|
The storage interface must allow specifying a durable_timestamp when committing a prepared transaction. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Githook User [ 04/Feb/19 ] | |||
|
Author: {'name': 'Xiangyu Yao', 'email': 'xiangyu.yao@mongodb.com', 'username': 'xy24'}Message: | |||
| Comment by Vamsi Boyapati [ 21/Jan/19 ] | |||
|
daniel.gottlieb, yes
is correct. | |||
| Comment by Daniel Gottlieb (Inactive) [ 20/Jan/19 ] | |||
|
I think right now we only need `setDurableTimestamp`. But if both were added, that wouldn't be a problem. I also assume you mean for the getter:
| |||
| Comment by Vamsi Boyapati [ 19/Jan/19 ] | |||
|
milkie, geert.bosch, daniel.gottlieb@10gen.com, I would like to have a conversation with regards to this ticket. Earlier mistakingly I mentioned in
to db/storage/recovery_unit.h. The interface change related to WiredTiger part is completed as part of |