Bug 1656597
Summary: | concurrently creating repositories causes most of them are not visible for consumer at the end | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Community] Candlepin | Reporter: | William Poteat <wpoteat> | |
Component: | candlepin | Assignee: | candlepin-bugs | |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | ||
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | ||
Priority: | medium | |||
Version: | 2.1 | CC: | bcourt, cdonnell, cduryee, crog, nmoumoul, ofalk, peter.vreman, pmoravec, redakkan, smeyer | |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | PrioBumpGSS, Triaged | |
Target Release: | --- | |||
Hardware: | x86_64 | |||
OS: | Linux | |||
Whiteboard: | ||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | ||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
Clone Of: | 1609543 | |||
: | 1656611 1656612 1656613 2068274 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2022-03-25 10:37:54 UTC | Type: | Bug | |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | ||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | ||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | ||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | ||
Embargoed: | ||||
Bug Depends On: | ||||
Bug Blocks: | 1122832, 1609543 |
Comment 1
Barnaby Court
2019-04-04 13:45:53 UTC
Hello, will a fix of this candlepin BZ include also scenario when deleting a Sat product? That invokes many Actions::Candlepin::Product::ContentRemove dynflow steps concurrently, i.e. many requests like: Request: verb=DELETE, uri=/candlepin/owners/RedHat/products/73563395718/content/1561805575836 for the same product but different content are raised concurrently. Will this BZ fix prevent the "Runtime Error Row was updated or deleted by another transaction" error I see in Sat6.5? (cf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609543#c22) For the creation of content there is a batch endpoint: POST products/{product_uuid}/batch_content Feels like we need a batch delete as well. There is no good way to allow concurrent adds/deletes of content for the same product. The locking would be extensive an obtrusive. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2068274 *** |