-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 720
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
config: sync store config in time #6919
Conversation
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
[REVIEW NOTIFICATION] This pull request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The rest are LGTM.
a885ede
to
959e236
Compare
req, err := http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, http.MethodGet, url, bytes.NewBuffer(nil)) | ||
if err != nil { | ||
cancel() | ||
return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to create store config http request: %w", err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need to update the store instead of always trying them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no, it will remove this store if the function return err in line 475.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will line 475 delete all stores?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
only delete the bad store.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But if the PD has a network partition with all TiKV within the sync period, once it recovers, will it have a problem?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think no, pd will refresh all store state if all the previous stores are bad.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
make sense
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6919 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 74.23% 74.22% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 427 427
Lines 45149 45163 +14
==========================================
+ Hits 33517 33524 +7
- Misses 8667 8675 +8
+ Partials 2965 2964 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
3a63f67
to
b14de0f
Compare
/merge |
@JmPotato: It seems you want to merge this PR, I will help you trigger all the tests: /run-all-tests You only need to trigger
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository. |
This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge. Commit hash: b14de0f
|
@bufferflies: Your PR was out of date, I have automatically updated it for you. If the CI test fails, you just re-trigger the test that failed and the bot will merge the PR for you after the CI passes. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository. |
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#6918 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#6918 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#6918 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
close #6918 add timeout context for observer tikv config to avoid wait too long Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
close #6918 add timeout context for observer tikv config to avoid wait too long Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: buffer <[email protected]>
close #6918 add timeout context for observer tikv config to avoid wait too long Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: buffer <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
close tikv#6918 add timeout context for observer tikv config to avoid wait too long Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
close #6918 add timeout context for observer tikv config to avoid wait too long Co-authored-by: Shirly <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: Close #6918
What is changed and how does it work?
Check List
Tests
Code changes
Side effects
Related changes
Release note