You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@rocketmq.apache.org by GitBox <gi...@apache.org> on 2022/07/05 07:58:18 UTC

[GitHub] [rocketmq] BurningCN opened a new issue, #4559: Is the operation here unnecessary?

BurningCN opened a new issue, #4559:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/issues/4559

   Is the operation here unnecessary?
   
   ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/43363120/177278769-8b3ae0de-0695-4547-9a51-f59a31cd4fab.png)
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@rocketmq.apache.org.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [rocketmq] github-actions[bot] closed issue #4559: Is the operation here unnecessary?

Posted by "github-actions[bot] (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.

github-actions[bot] closed issue #4559: Is the operation here unnecessary?
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/issues/4559


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@rocketmq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [rocketmq] github-actions[bot] commented on issue #4559: Is the operation here unnecessary?

Posted by "github-actions[bot] (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.

github-actions[bot] commented on issue #4559:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/issues/4559#issuecomment-1624458313

   This issue is stale because it has been open for 365 days with no activity. It will be closed in 3 days if no further activity occurs.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@rocketmq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [rocketmq] MatrixHB commented on issue #4559: Is the operation here unnecessary?

Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.

MatrixHB commented on issue #4559:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/issues/4559#issuecomment-1175723754

   `logicsMsgTimestamp` will persist to the checkpoint file. When doing `recoverAbnormally`, we will start to recover the last file and get the first message in the last file. If its storage timestamp is less than `min(logicsMsgTimestamp, phyMsgTimestamp)` in the checkpoint, it means that this file needs to be recovered.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@rocketmq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [rocketmq] github-actions[bot] commented on issue #4559: Is the operation here unnecessary?

Posted by "github-actions[bot] (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.

github-actions[bot] commented on issue #4559:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/issues/4559#issuecomment-1629901335

   This issue was closed because it has been inactive for 3 days since being marked as stale.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@rocketmq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [rocketmq] BurningCN commented on issue #4559: Is the operation here unnecessary?

Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.

BurningCN commented on issue #4559:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/issues/4559#issuecomment-1175732844

   > Hi @MatrixHB ,
   > 
   > Thx for your explanation. But I believe @BurningCN knew the effect of `logicsMsgTimestamp`. I guess he refers to whether the logics of these two statements are necessary. IMO, it only gets the logicsMsgTimestamp from the checkpoint and set the identical thing back to it without any change. It didn't make any sense doing so.
   
   Yes, that's what I meant to say


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@rocketmq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [rocketmq] tsunghanjacktsai commented on issue #4559: Is the operation here unnecessary?

Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.

tsunghanjacktsai commented on issue #4559:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/issues/4559#issuecomment-1175730943

   Hi @MatrixHB ,
   
   Thx for your explanation. But I believe @HScarb knew the effect of `logicsMsgTimestamp`. I guess he refers to whether the logics of these two statements are necessary. IMO, it only gets the logicsMsgTimestamp from the checkpoint and set the identical thing back to it without any change. It didn't make any sense doing so.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@rocketmq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [rocketmq] MatrixHB commented on issue #4559: Is the operation here unnecessary?

Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.

MatrixHB commented on issue #4559:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/issues/4559#issuecomment-1175818573

   > Hi @MatrixHB ,
   > 
   > Thx for your explanation. But I believe @BurningCN knew the effect of `logicsMsgTimestamp`. I guess he refers to whether the logics of these two statements are necessary. IMO, it only gets the logicsMsgTimestamp from the checkpoint and set the identical thing back to it without any change. It didn't make any sense doing so.
   
   Thanks, I got it. What actually makes sense is in` ConsumeQueue#putMessagePositionInfoWrapper`


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@rocketmq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org