[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-580?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ivan Kelly updated BOOKKEEPER-580:
----------------------------------
Attachment: 0001-BOOKKEEPER-580-improve-close-logic.patch
Rebased to trunk (just had to fiddle with some import changes). [~hustlmsp]
[~fpj] Could we agree on what we do for a double invocation of close()? My
opinion is that if we try to close an already closed handle, it should proceed
with ok, as it doesn't change any assumptions on the state of the ledger.
I'd like to get this into 4.2.2
> improve close logic
> -------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-580
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-580
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: bookkeeper-client
> Reporter: Sijie Guo
> Assignee: Sijie Guo
> Fix For: 4.2.2, 4.3.0
>
> Attachments: 0001-BOOKKEEPER-580-improve-close-logic.patch,
> BOOKKEEPER-580.diff, BOOKKEEPER-580.diff
>
>
> currently, bookkeeper client still write ledger metadata to metadata storage
> even the metadata is already closed or undergoing closing. which would cause
> lots of bad version metadata update encountering unrecoverable errors in
> ledger handle. e.g. NotEnoughtBookiesException.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
