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

tikv scaling takes precedence over upgrading #2886

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jul 10, 2020
Merged

Conversation

cofyc
Copy link
Contributor

@cofyc cofyc commented Jul 8, 2020

What problem does this PR solve?

fixes #2739

What is changed and how does it work?

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • E2E test
  • Stability test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

Code changes

  • Has Go code change
  • Has CI related scripts change
  • Has Terraform scripts change

Side effects

  • Breaking backward compatibility

Related changes

  • Need to cherry-pick to the release branch
  • Need to update the documentation

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Support scaling and auto-failover even if a TiKV store fails in upgrading

}
}
return exist, nil
return false, nil
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

simplify the code

@@ -252,19 +252,6 @@ func TestTiKVScalerScaleIn(t *testing.T) {
errExpectFn: errExpectRequeue,
changed: false,
},
{
name: "tikv is upgrading",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we modify the case to cover the scenario that scaling can be done during upgrading?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

updated

Copy link
Contributor

@DanielZhangQD DanielZhangQD left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@DanielZhangQD
Copy link
Contributor

/merge

@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry @DanielZhangQD, you don't have permission to trigger auto merge event on this branch. The number of LGTM for this PR is 0 while it needs 2 at least

@cofyc cofyc merged commit 9b8dc48 into pingcap:master Jul 10, 2020
ti-srebot pushed a commit to ti-srebot/tidb-operator that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2020
Signed-off-by: ti-srebot <ti-srebot@pingcap.com>
@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor

cherry pick to release-1.1 in PR #2898

ti-srebot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2020
Signed-off-by: ti-srebot <ti-srebot@pingcap.com>

Co-authored-by: Yecheng Fu <fuyecheng@pingcap.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

failover and scaling are blocked if one Pod failed during rolling update
4 participants