KAFKA-9807; Protect LSO reads from concurrent high-watermark updates#8418
Merged
Conversation
ijuma
reviewed
Apr 3, 2020
ijuma
reviewed
Apr 3, 2020
guozhangwang
approved these changes
Apr 3, 2020
guozhangwang
left a comment
guozhangwang
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM! Thanks @hachikuji
hachikuji
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2020
…8418) If the high-watermark is updated in the middle of a read with the `read_committed` isolation level, it is possible to return data above the LSO. In the worst case, this can lead to the read of an aborted transaction. The root cause is that the logic depends on reading the high-watermark twice. We fix the problem by reading it once and caching the value. Reviewers: David Arthur <mumrah@gmail.com>, Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com>, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk>
hachikuji
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2020
…8418) If the high-watermark is updated in the middle of a read with the `read_committed` isolation level, it is possible to return data above the LSO. In the worst case, this can lead to the read of an aborted transaction. The root cause is that the logic depends on reading the high-watermark twice. We fix the problem by reading it once and caching the value. Reviewers: David Arthur <mumrah@gmail.com>, Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com>, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk>
qq619618919
pushed a commit
to qq619618919/kafka
that referenced
this pull request
May 12, 2020
…pache#8418) If the high-watermark is updated in the middle of a read with the `read_committed` isolation level, it is possible to return data above the LSO. In the worst case, this can lead to the read of an aborted transaction. The root cause is that the logic depends on reading the high-watermark twice. We fix the problem by reading it once and caching the value. Reviewers: David Arthur <mumrah@gmail.com>, Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com>, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk>
andrey-klochkov-liftoff
pushed a commit
to liftoffio/kafka
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2020
…pache#8418) If the high-watermark is updated in the middle of a read with the `read_committed` isolation level, it is possible to return data above the LSO. In the worst case, this can lead to the read of an aborted transaction. The root cause is that the logic depends on reading the high-watermark twice. We fix the problem by reading it once and caching the value. Reviewers: David Arthur <mumrah@gmail.com>, Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com>, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If the high-watermark is updated in the middle of a read with the
read_committedisolation level, it is possible to return data above the LSO. In the worst case, this can lead to the read of an aborted transaction. The root cause is that the logic depends on reading the high-watermark twice. We fix the problem by reading it once and caching the value.Committer Checklist (excluded from commit message)