[SERVER-60377] UNSHARDED version should have a valid timestamp Created: 01/Oct/21 Updated: 06/Oct/21 Resolved: 06/Oct/21 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Sharding |
| Affects Version/s: | 5.1 Required |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Sergi Mateo Bellido | Assignee: | Sergi Mateo Bellido |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Backport Requested: |
v5.1
|
||||||||
| Sprint: | Sharding EMEA 2021-10-04, Sharding EMEA 2021-10-18 | ||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||
| Linked BF Score: | 46 | ||||||||
| Description |
|
Right now we we define the timestamp of UNSHARDED as Timestamp(0, 0) but it looks like this value has a special semantic: when it is used on a CRUD op it means to get the current time. From our side we can change it to Timestamp(0, 1) or something like that. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Sergi Mateo Bellido [ 06/Oct/21 ] |
|
I have discussed this topic with different members of our team and we are not 100% convinced about the change. Since right now we are not actually persisting UNSHARDED (and it doesn't seem that we are going to do it in the real future) there is no real problem, so I think it is better to leave it as it is. |