Bug 1024373 - Default optimistic locking configuration leads to inconsistency
Summary: Default optimistic locking configuration leads to inconsistency
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: JBoss Data Grid 6
Classification: JBoss
Component: Infinispan
Version: 6.2.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: 7.0.0
Assignee: Tristan Tarrant
QA Contact: Martin Gencur
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1026221 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-10-29 14:29 UTC by Martin Gencur
Modified: 2022-12-31 23:44 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Known Issue
Doc Text:
In Red Hat JBoss Data Grid, transactional caches are configured with optimistic locking by default. Concurrent <methodname>replace()</methodname> calls can return true under contention and transactions might unexpectedly commit. Two concurrent commands, <command>replace(key, A, B)</command> and <command>replace(key, A, C)</command> may both overwrite the entry. The command which is finalized later wins, overwriting an unexpected value with new value. This is a known issue in JBoss Data Grid 6.4. As a workaround, enable write skew check and the <parameter>REPEATABLE_READ</parameter> isolation level. This results in concurrent replace operations working as expected.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker ISPN-3655 0 Blocker Closed Default optimistic locking configuration leads to inconsistency 2020-10-12 15:35:43 UTC

Description Martin Gencur 2013-10-29 14:29:13 UTC
This should be mentioned in release notes as a fixed issue so that users know about it.

Comment 2 Martin Gencur 2013-10-29 15:15:07 UTC
Hi Misha, this should be documented in release notes. Users should know that the default configuration has changed.

Comment 3 Misha H. Ali 2013-10-29 23:23:13 UTC
Added the flag. Gemma will develop this release note for the GA Release Notes as a resolved issue.

In the meantime, if someone can point us to a JIRA that tracked this issue originally or add some CCFR information about this issue, it would be very helpful.

Comment 4 Radim Vansa 2013-11-04 10:14:09 UTC
*** Bug 1026221 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 5 JBoss JIRA Server 2013-11-12 12:40:57 UTC
Galder Zamarreño <galder.zamarreno> made a comment on jira ISPN-3655

Deferred to 7.0

Comment 6 Martin Gencur 2013-12-10 11:35:52 UTC
This was scheduled for 7.0.0 and so it can't be a blocker for JDG 6.2. Removing this flag. This issue should be documented in release notes for JDG 6.2.GA as a known issue.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.