[infinispan-dev] L1 consistency for transactional caches.

[Sanne Grinovero]

+1 for considering it a BUG

Didn't we decide a year ago that GET operations should be sent to a
single node only (the primary) ?

On 2 July 2013 15:59, Pedro Ruivo <pedro at infinispan.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> simple question: What are the consistency guaranties that is supposed to
> be ensured?
>
> I have the following scenario (happened in a test case):
>
> NonOwner: remote get key
> BackupOwner: receives the remote get and replies (with the correct value)
> BackupOwner: put in L1 the value
> PrimaryOwner: [at the same time] is committing a transaction that will
> update the key.
> PrimaryOwer: receives the remote get after sending the commit. The
> invalidation for L1 is not sent to NonOwner.
>
> The test finishes and I perform a check for the key value in all the
> caches. The NonOwner returns the L1 cached value (==test fail).
>
> IMO, this is bug (or not) depending what guaranties we provide.
>
> wdyt?
>
> Pedro
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev