Removing SrvShard

[alainjobart]

@enisoc so much simpler!

(also fixed Topology Server doc).

---

This change is

[enisoc]

Previously, alainjobart (Alain Jobart) wrote…

Removing SrvShard

@enisoc so much simpler!

(also fixed Topology Server doc).

---

Reviewed 70 of 70 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions.

---

doc/TopologyService.md, line 43 [r1] (raw file):

* There is one local instance per cell, that contains cell-specific information,
  and also rolled-up data from the global + local cell to make it easier for
  clients to find the data. The Vitess serving path should not use the global

In my update of the Concepts doc, I'm careful to not say the "serving path" requires access to local topology. In my experience, that gives some people the mistaken belief that as part of serving each query, we do a read from topology to fetch routing info.

---

doc/VitessApi.md, line 819 [r1] (raw file):

### topodata.ShardReference

Serving graph information ShardReference is used as a pointer from a SrvKeyspace to a Shard

The fragment "Serving graph information" doesn't fit grammatically here (and below). Was this an accidental find/replace?

---

Comments from Reviewable

[alainjobart]

I'll fix these two comments, merge end import tomorrow morning...

[alainjobart]

Review status: 67 of 70 files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions.

---

doc/TopologyService.md, line 43 [r1] (raw file):

Previously, enisoc (Anthony Yeh) wrote…

In my update of the Concepts doc, I'm careful to not say the "serving path" requires access to local topology. In my experience, that gives some people the mistaken belief that as part of serving each query, we do a read from topology to fetch routing info.

Done.

---

doc/VitessApi.md, line 819 [r1] (raw file):

Previously, enisoc (Anthony Yeh) wrote…

The fragment "Serving graph information" doesn't fit grammatically here (and below). Was this an accidental find/replace?

This is generated from the proto file. It had a section name there. Removed it.

---

Comments from Reviewable