lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3439) add checks/asserts if you search across a closed reader
Date Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:27:08 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3439?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13105663#comment-13105663
] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-3439:
--------------------------------------------

I think we should add real checks here, w/ volatile isOpen/isClosed bool, up and down the
stack, to those methods where the volatile read cost will be tiny compared to the cost of
the method or of the app using the returned result.

IR/IW already try to do this (hmm: though not volatile for IW) but it sounds like we are missing
checks inside the codecs?

> add checks/asserts if you search across a closed reader
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-3439
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3439
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>
> if you try to search across a closed reader (and/or searcher too),
> there are no checks, not even assertions statements.
> this results in crazy scary stacktraces deep inside places like FSTs/various term dictionary
implementations etc.
> In some situations, depending on codec, you wont even get an error (i'm sure its fun
when you try to retrieve the stored fields!)

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message