Added UNIQUE constraint on auditdb actor_name as suggested in issue.#24
Merged
m-atlantis merged 1 commit intomasterfrom Jun 20, 2022
Merged
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
So the issue description suggests that this synchronized method snippet for extracting
actor_guidfrom the db gets called twice for the same actor with the second run starting before the first has finished inserting the actor into the table. This results in twoactorentries with the sameactor_namebut differentactor_guid...I don't understand why this would be specific to only checksum-pillars, but this might've just been a coincidental observation.
I made the suggested solution of just adding a unique constraint on actor_name, which I guess would have the db throw an error on second insertion if it were to happen again, but at least that would be a more meaningful place to throw an error instead of on retrieval.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what is actually happening, we should at some point look into how this synchronized block could even be executed like that to fix the actual problem.