-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 479
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
TLA+ spec for safekeeper membership change #9966
Conversation
f5e59cf
to
430e8ca
Compare
430e8ca
to
7e0fc27
Compare
7095 tests run: 6797 passed, 0 failed, 298 skipped (full report)Flaky tests (3)Postgres 17
Postgres 15
Code coverage* (full report)
* collected from Rust tests only The comment gets automatically updated with the latest test results
5c8aee7 at 2024-12-30T15:45:59.103Z :recycle: |
7e0fc27
to
8603294
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Initial review of everything reachable from Next
and invariants.
As with static spec, there are no liveness invariants, right?
Let's have a meeting on my questions on >=
vs =
in StartChange
/FinishChange
/AbortChange
. I think I'm not seeing something / misunderstood the simplifications.
By the way should document the spec's simplifcations at the top, simliar to how we do for static config.
safekeeper/spec/models/MCProposerAcceptorReconfig_p2_a2_t2_l2_c3.cfg
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
safekeeper/spec/models/MCProposerAcceptorReconfig_p2_a4_t2_l2_c3.cfg
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
b84490f
to
8603294
Compare
Addressed all comments, please have another look.
Yes.
Done. |
Problem
We want to define the algorithm for safekeeper membership change.
Summary of changes
Add spec for it, several models and logs of checking them.
ref #8699