[SERVER-42956] ReadyIndexesIterator::_advance() does not perform isReady() check Created: 21/Aug/19 Updated: 26/Sep/19 Resolved: 23/Aug/19 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Justin Seyster | Assignee: | Daniel Gottlieb (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Won't Do | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Operating System: | ALL | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Backport Requested: |
v4.2
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | Execution Team 2019-08-26 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
A change for Skipping this check may allow a query to scan an index that is not consistent with the current transaction. We believe the fassert() added by |
| Comments |
| Comment by Daniel Gottlieb (Inactive) [ 23/Aug/19 ] |
|
Instead of the proposed fix, I recommend doing The solution proposed here would fix the specific problem the validation in If FWIW, the sample patch in |
| Comment by Justin Seyster [ 22/Aug/19 ] |
|
daniel.gottlieb Yes to both. |
| Comment by Daniel Gottlieb (Inactive) [ 21/Aug/19 ] |
|
justin.seyster Is this failing specifically in the case where the reader is not using a timestamp? And presumably the reader is concurrent with a background/hybrid index build completing? |