lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anshum Gupta (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-12767) Deprecate min_rf parameter and always include the achieved rf in the response
Date Fri, 28 Sep 2018 22:35:00 GMT


Anshum Gupta commented on SOLR-12767:

Looks good to me.

Here are a few minor (nit-pick?) suggestions:
 * I know you already have an entry in the Bug Fixes and the Improvements section, but I think
this would be a good thing to add to the 'upgrading from' section too? Just as this is a user
facing param that we want to remove.
 * In - Can you add a TODO tag there?

+        // Kept for rolling upgrades only. Should be removed in Solr 9{code}

> Deprecate min_rf parameter and always include the achieved rf in the response
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-12767
>                 URL:
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>            Reporter: Tomás Fernández Löbbe
>            Assignee: Tomás Fernández Löbbe
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: SOLR-12767.patch, SOLR-12767.patch, SOLR-12767.patch, SOLR-12767.patch,
> Currently the {{min_rf}} parameter does two things.
> 1. It tells Solr that the user wants to keep track of the achieved replication factor
> 2. (undocumented AFAICT) It prevents Solr from putting replicas in recovery if the achieved
replication factor is lower than the {{min_rf}} specified
> #2 is intentional and I believe the reason behind it is to prevent replicas to go into
recovery in cases of short hiccups (since the assumption is that the user is going to retry
the request anyway). This is dangerous because if the user doesn’t retry (or retries a number
of times but keeps failing) the replicas will be permanently inconsistent. Also, since we
now retry updates from leaders to replicas, this behavior has less value, since short temporary
blips should be recovered by those retries anyway. 
> I think we should remove the behavior described in #2, #1 is still valuable, but there
isn’t much point of making the parameter an integer, the user is just telling Solr that
they want the achieved replication factor, so it could be a boolean, but I’m thinking we
probably don’t even want to expose the parameter, and just always keep track of it, and
include it in the response. It’s not costly to calculate, so why keep two separate code

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message