Skip to content
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

Ignore replayed commands on the metastore. #2151

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 2, 2015

Conversation

benbjohnson
Copy link
Contributor

Overview

This commit changes the metastore to ignore any commands that are replayed against it. This is typically handled by the messaging.Conn but there's no sense in panicing in the metastore if a replayed message comes through.

@otoolep
Copy link
Contributor

otoolep commented Apr 2, 2015

LGTM.

@otoolep
Copy link
Contributor

otoolep commented Apr 2, 2015

If this happens though, is it an indication of a bug?

@benbjohnson
Copy link
Contributor Author

It looks like the main issue is that Conn.SetIndex() isn't being called. Although even when it is called we could get in a race where a reconnection on the Conn is done after an index is applied but before the Conn.Index is updated.

The other option is to inject Conn with an Index() getter func that retrieves the index of the metastore but that seems like it couples the two together too tightly.

@jwilder
Copy link
Contributor

jwilder commented Apr 2, 2015

👍

This commit changes the metastore to ignore any commands that are replayed
against it. This is typically handled by the messaging.Conn but there's no
sense in panicing in the metastore if a replayed message comes through.
benbjohnson added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 2, 2015
Ignore replayed commands on the metastore.
@benbjohnson benbjohnson merged commit 20c55bc into master Apr 2, 2015
@benbjohnson benbjohnson deleted the ignore-metastore-replay branch April 2, 2015 20:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants