moving pre 2.6.45 write commands that were not previously considered primary-only out of primary-only #2183
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
…primary-only out of primary-only
|
@NickCraver adding do-not-merge label See my comment here |
|
@slorello89 recommend continuing with a revert here to a known good. If we want to get smarter about it later we can, but let's switch back to a state that caused fewer issues overall :) |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #2182
@NickCraver for background in #2101, we changed some of the logic around primary-only to require all commands to be explicitly stated as primary-only or not. During this effort, I went through the command list and checked to see which were considered write commands (which would be rejected by a replica) so that there would be consistency in behavior when stumbling on commands that would ordinarily be rejected by a replica. This made a slightly more restrictive list of commands.
Enter #2182, where this inconsistency had evidently become load-bearing. The user has evidently designated their replicas as writeable (I think I was subconsciously aware of this capability but have never actually seen anyone use it). As it turns out By resolving this inconsistency in #2101 and the follow-on issue when I introduced
SORT_ROin #2111 I apparently introduced a break.This PR reverts all the pre-2.6.45 commands' primary vs replica disposition back to their previous state which will remove the break. Any command that was introduced in 2.6.45 is correctly dispositioned.