[SERVER-58162] Investigate ReplicationCoordinator::canAcceptWritesFor condition in requiresTimestampForCatalogWrite Created: 29/Jun/21 Updated: 29/Oct/23 Resolved: 13/Sep/21 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 5.1.0-rc0 |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Gregory Noma | Assignee: | Gregory Noma |
| 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: | Execution Team 2021-09-20 | ||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||
| Description |
|
The requiresTimestampForCatalogWrite function returns whether we should enforce that a given catalog must be timestamped. As a part of |
| Comments |
| Comment by Vivian Ge (Inactive) [ 06/Oct/21 ] |
|
Updating the fixversion since branching activities occurred yesterday. This ticket will be in rc0 when it’s been triggered. For more active release information, please keep an eye on #server-release. Thank you! |
| Comment by Githook User [ 13/Sep/21 ] |
|
Author: {'name': 'Gregory Noma', 'email': 'gregory.noma@gmail.com', 'username': 'gregorynoma'}Message: |
| Comment by Daniel Gottlieb (Inactive) [ 06/Jul/21 ] |
|
If we can accept writes, then we are a primary and the catalog write will be timestamped because we are obligated to write an oplog entry (or the caller could explicitly do its own ghost timestamp). Or the collection is (a user collection) in the local database and does not need to be timestamped. |