[SERVER-3964] Dropping an index invalidates all cursors on that collection, not just ones using that index. Created: 27/Sep/11 Updated: 17/Jan/19 Resolved: 17/Jan/19 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Index Maintenance |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Minor - P4 |
| Reporter: | Spencer Brody (Inactive) | Assignee: | David Storch |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 1 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | Query 2019-01-28 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case: | (copied to CRM) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Linked BF Score: | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
When you drop an index, we invalidate all open cursors on the collection that that index was on. It would be better if we could detect which cursors are using the index and only invalidate those cursors. Per |
| Comments |
| Comment by David Storch [ 17/Jan/19 ] |
|
As of commit de2a803ca49 under Queries that are considering an index for planning purposes may still get killed when a seemingly unrelated index is dropped, as that index is required to stay alive for the planning process to complete successfully. This is only true when the index is dropped during the MULTI_PLAN, SUBPLAN, or CACHED_PLAN trial period. Correcting this limitation is left as future work. ravind.kumar, I could not flag this ticket for documentation changes, since its resolution is not "Fixed". (I resolved the ticket as "Gone Away" since it had no commits assigned to it, and rather was fixed by a sequence of related changes under other tickets.) Please let me know if there are any other details you need for the documentation. I filed |
| Comment by David Storch [ 31/Oct/18 ] |
|
ravind.kumar, for now I've just marked as "Documentation Changes: Needed". Thanks for the heads up. When this is implemented, I'll be sure to provide any technical details that may be relevant to the docs team. |
| Comment by Ravind Kumar (Inactive) [ 29/Oct/18 ] |
|
Given that this isn't currently documented behavior, please mark this as Documentation Needed so we can fix this up moving forward. |
| Comment by Alex Piggott [ 13/Mar/13 ] |
|
For when this gets assigned: what are your thoughts on how the Java driver handles this exception (and presumably similar ones) - see |