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

problem starting incremental repair when full repair was executed earlier or vice-versa #8

Closed
aggarwalabhi23 opened this issue Oct 20, 2016 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@aggarwalabhi23
Copy link

while creating new run, if the passed value of incremental repair flag is different from the existing value then it should allow to create new repair_unit instead of getting repair_unit based on cluster name/ keyspace /column combination.

so, if the full run was executed for the clustername/keyspace/column was executed earlier, not able to start new incremental run for the same combination. Reverse is also true.

So as per current solution if i delete the repair_unit then due to referential constraints i need to delete repair_segment and repair_run as well which will delete the run history corresponds to the repaid_unit.

@zznate
Copy link
Contributor

zznate commented Oct 20, 2016

Given the potential performance impact (run-time and per repair) of flipping to and from incremental, treating this as a completely new repair_unit seems reasonable to me.

@adejanovski adejanovski self-assigned this Oct 21, 2016
adejanovski added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 21, 2016
…keyspace with different inc repair settings
@adejanovski
Copy link
Contributor

adejanovski commented Oct 21, 2016

@aggarwalabhi23 : I've fixed this in PR #9
Can you check that the fix works for you before we merge ?

zznate added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 27, 2016
…ettings

Fix for issue #8 (problem starting incremental repair when full repair was executed earlier or vice-versa)
@adejanovski
Copy link
Contributor

Fix merged

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants