[JCR-2413] AlreadyClosedException on initial index creation

• Type: Bug
• Status: Closed
• Priority: Major
• Resolution: Fixed
• Affects Version/s: 2.0-beta3
• Fix Version/s: 1.6.4, 2.0-beta4
• Component/s: jackrabbit-core
• Assignee: Unassigned
• Reporter: Marcel Reutegger
• Created: 30/Nov/09 09:55
• Updated: 08/Jun/10 09:24
• Resolved: 30/Nov/09 13:06

Description

Happens when the indexing queue is checked while creating an initial index. This is probably a regression caused by JCR-2035.

Caused by: org.apache.lucene.store.AlreadyClosedException: this Directory is closed
at org.apache.lucene.store.Directory.ensureOpen(Directory.java:220)
at org.apache.lucene.store.FSDirectory.getFile(FSDirectory.java:533)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.directory.FSDirectoryManager$FSDir.list(FSDirectoryManager.java:149)
at org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentInfos$FindSegmentsFile.run(SegmentInfos.java:533)
at org.apache.lucene.index.DirectoryIndexReader.open(DirectoryIndexReader.java:115)
at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexReader.open(IndexReader.java:316)
at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexReader.open(IndexReader.java:263)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.AbstractIndex.getIndexReader(AbstractIndex.java:245)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.AbstractIndex.removeDocument(AbstractIndex.java:225)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.PersistentIndex.removeDocument(PersistentIndex.java:90)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.MultiIndex$DeleteNode.execute(MultiIndex.java:1952)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.MultiIndex.executeAndLog(MultiIndex.java:1085)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.MultiIndex.checkIndexingQueue(MultiIndex.java:1308)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.MultiIndex.createIndex(MultiIndex.java:1177)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.MultiIndex.createIndex(MultiIndex.java:1191)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.MultiIndex.createIndex(MultiIndex.java:1191)
at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.query.lucene.MultiIndex.createIndex(MultiIndex.java:1191)
[...]

I assume there is an index merge happening at the same time that closes index segments.