Wolf-Dieter Fink created ISPN-12183: --------------------------------------- Summary: Transaction inconsistency during network partitions Key: ISPN-12183 URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-12183 Project: Infinispan Issue Type: Bug Components: Transactions Affects Versions: 9.1.0.Final Reporter: Wolf-Dieter Fink Assignee: Pedro Ruivo In scenario where the originator stays in minor partition (in our test suite, the originator isolated tests), it is possible to a transaction to be committed and rolled back in the majority partition. In {{Pessimitic Locking}}, the transaction is committed in one-phase using the {{PrepareCommand}}. If the partition happens when the originator sends the {{PrepareCommand}}, the nodes in the majority partition may or may not receive it. We can have the case where some nodes receive the {{PrepareCommand}} and applied and other don't receive it. When the topology is updated in the majority partition, the {{TransactionTable}} rollbacks all transaction in which the originator isn't present. So, in the nodes where the {{PrepareCommand}} isn't received, the transaction is rolled back. The originator in the minory partition detects the partition and marks the transaction partially completed. When the merge occurs, it tries to commit the transaction again. In the nodes where the transaction is rolled back, the transaction is marked as completed and when the {{PrepareCommand}} is received, it throws an {{IllegalStateException}} ({{TransactionTable:386, getOrCreateRemoteTransaction()}}). In this case, the transaction isn't removed from the {{PartitionHandlingManager}} and our test suite fails with {{"there are pending tx".}} Other theoretically scenario is the {{PrepareCommand}} to be executed when no locks are acquired. The same issue can happen with {{Optimistic Locking}} for the {{CommitCommand}}. The problem is the transaction table can't identify is the node left gracefully or not. A solution would be to have an {{"expected members"}} list, ideally separated from the {{CacheTopology}} to avoid sending it every time. Also, it would need some sysadmin tools for the case where the node crashes and it won't be back online for a while (or for some reason, it doesn't need to be back online). A sysadmin could remove the node from this list ({{CacheTopology}} is updated and there is no need to increase it) and decide what to do with the pending transactions (or an automatic mechanism to auto-commit/rollback the transaction). -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008)