[infinispan-dev] L1 consistency for transactional caches.

[Pedro Ruivo]

On 07/02/2013 04:21 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> +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) ?

+1 :)

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>