If each mutation comes from a separate CQL they would be separate, no?
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:17 AM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > If M1 and M2 both operate over the same partition key they won’t be > separate mutations, they should be combined into a single mutation before > submission to SP.mutate > > > On 19 Aug 2022, at 10:05, Claude Warren, Jr via dev < > dev@cassandra.apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > # Table definitions > > > > Table [ Primary key ] other data > > base [ A B C ] D E > > MV [ D C ] A B E > > > > > > # Initial data > > base -> MV > > [ a b c ] d e -> [d c] a b e > > [ a' b c ] d e -> [d c] a' b e > > > > > > ## Mutations -> expected outcome > > > > M1: base [ a b c ] d e' -> MV [ d c ] a b e' > > M2: base [ a b c ] d' e -> MV [ d' c ] a b e > > > > ## processing bug > > Assume lock can not be obtained during processing of M1. > > > > The mutation M1 sleeps to wait for lock. (Trunk Keyspace.java : 601 ) > > > > Assume M2 obtains the lock and executes. > > > > MV is now > > [ d' c ] a b e > > > > M1 then obtains the lock and executes > > > > MV is now > > [ d c ] a b e' > > [ d' c] a b e > > > > base is > > [ a b c ] d e' > > > > MV entry "[ d' c ] a b e" is orphaned > > > > > >
