[aggregator|tcpclient] Drop enqueued payloads for a flush after write fails #4116
Conversation
This file contains 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
| n += processed | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // drop any unconsumed messages | ||
| q.bufProcessing.reset() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sanity checking:
- Do we have/need retries before we drop the buffer here?
- Are these buffered elsewhere? Afaict no, but sanity checking.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the processing buf is not used outside of Flush(), which is now thread-safe, and retries are handled by the "connection".
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
…failed
What this PR does / why we need it:
If an instance is slow/dead and writes (with retries) fail, don't just abort flush - drop all enqueued payloads (captured at the time of Flush()). Otherwise, the backlog is accumulating up to the point the queue is dropping upstream and causes even more load on the target aggregator instance the next flush cycle.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing and/or backwards incompatible change?:
Does this PR require updating code package or user-facing documentation?: