[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14734?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17720535#comment-17720535
]
Andrey N. Gura commented on IGNITE-14734:
-----------------------------------------
[~sdanilov] Could you please describe the process of decision making about a MS
compaction necessity and how the cluster nodes negotiate about watermark?
> Implement compaction functionality management for meta storage.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-14734
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14734
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Andrey N. Gura
> Assignee: Semyon Danilov
> Priority: Major
> Labels: iep-61, ignite-3
> Fix For: 3.0.0-beta2
>
> Time Spent: 3h 50m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> At present {{SimpleInMemoryKeyValueStorage}} already has compaction
> functionality but it is question: who and when should invoke {{compact}}
> method.
> h3. Upd:
> * It's still an open question: who and when should invoke {{compact}} method.
> * Besides that, it's required to fix storage compaction - IGNITE-16444
> * Seems that we, might reuse inner ms cursors meta in order to prevent
> compaction of cursors over witch we are currently iterating.
> * It's still however possible that revision-based get(), range(), and
> watch(), invoke(), etc will throw CompactionException on corresponding
> initial calls.
> h3. UPD 2:
> For this ticket we decided to implement time-based compaction by creating a
> timestamp (watermark)->revision mapping. Watermark provider will be
> implemented in a separate ticket:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-19417
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
