Re: IGNITE-7285 Add default query timeout

Hi Saikat, It is good that we agreed how property in question should be configured. But I worry about the following. If the PR merged it will not contain a user value yet because an introduced property is not used. Consequently we must start using that property before a next AI release. Just on

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-11836) keyFields must be empty if keyType is an SQL type

Stanislav Lukyanov created IGNITE-11836: --- Summary: keyFields must be empty if keyType is an SQL type Key: IGNITE-11836 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11836 Project: Ignite

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-11835) Support JMX/control.sh API for page lock dump

Dmitriy Govorukhin created IGNITE-11835: --- Summary: Support JMX/control.sh API for page lock dump Key: IGNITE-11835 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11835 Project: Ignite

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-11834) Confusing message on rebalance

Vladislav Pyatkov created IGNITE-11834: -- Summary: Confusing message on rebalance Key: IGNITE-11834 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11834 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Bug

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-11833) Tests for cache group functionality don't have version with persistence enabled

Eduard Shangareev created IGNITE-11833: -- Summary: Tests for cache group functionality don't have version with persistence enabled Key: IGNITE-11833 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11833

Re: Hello

Hi Maxim, Thank you for interest in Apache Ignite, and welcome to the Apache Ignite community. I've added JIRA account with username 'Maxoid' to the list of contributors, so now you can assign the issue. I see the issue is already in Patch Available, so let's test it on the TeamCity. I've trigge

Hello

Hello Ignite Community! My name is Maxim Karavaev. I want to contribute to Apache Ignite and want to start with this issue - IGNITE-11346, my JIRA username Maxim Karavaev. Any help on this will be appreciated. Thanks!

Re: "Idle verify" to "Online verify"

Ivan, 1) I've checked the PR [1] and it looks like it does not solve the issue too. AFAICS, the main goal here (at PR) is to produce PartitionUpdateCounter#sequential which can be false for all backups, what backup should win in that case? Is there any IEP or some another design page for this fix

Re: "Idle verify" to "Online verify"

Anton, Automatic quorum-based partition drop may work as a partial workaround for IGNITE-10078, but discussed approach surely doesn't replace IGNITE-10078 activity. We still don't know what do to when quorum can't be reached (2 partitions have hash X, 2 have hash Y) and keeping extended updat

Re: "Idle verify" to "Online verify"

Ivan, just to make sure ... The discussed case will fully solve the issue [1] in case we'll also add some strategy to reject partitions with missed updates (updateCnt==Ok, Hash!=Ok). For example, we may use the Quorum strategy, when the majority wins. Sounds correct? [1] https://issues.apache.org/