Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

kvserver: don't GC if protected timestamp information isn't available #78300

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 23, 2022

Conversation

arulajmani
Copy link
Collaborator

We only want to run GC on a replica that some PTS information (even if
it's stale). We don't want to run GC on a replica if no PTS information
is available however. This can happen if a Replica is being considered
for GC before the initial scan of the KVSubscriber has completed.

This wasn't an issue before this patch for implicit reasons -- this
patch just makes the check explicit and adds a test. Previously, we
wouldn't run GC if no PTS information was available because our lease
was guaranteed to be newer than the empty timestamp.

Release note: None

We only want to run GC on a replica that some PTS information (even if
it's stale). We don't want to run GC on a replica if no PTS information
is available however. This can happen if a Replica is being considered
for GC before the initial scan of the KVSubscriber has completed.

This wasn't an issue before this patch for implicit reasons -- this
patch just makes the check explicit and adds a test. Previously, we
wouldn't run GC if no PTS information was available because our lease
was guaranteed to be newer than the empty timestamp.

Release note: None
@arulajmani arulajmani requested a review from a team as a code owner March 23, 2022 00:13
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

@arulajmani
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks!

bors r+

@craig
Copy link
Contributor

craig bot commented Mar 23, 2022

Build succeeded:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants