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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
CASSANDRA-21191: [CEP-59] Implementation of In-Band Connection Draining (Graceful Disconnect) #4953
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
base: trunk
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
CASSANDRA-21191: [CEP-59] Implementation of In-Band Connection Draining (Graceful Disconnect) #4953
Changes from 1 commit
35e6cf1635137a3ee100e0694e84a325bade0adab2File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Jump to
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
+1
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.
Isn't this the default configuration itself?
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.
Add
// for testing purposeCuz it's not used anywhere in src.
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.
Ig we must use @VisibleForTesting annotation
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.
What's the purpose of this change
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.
There's no logical connection between the protocol version bound here and support for graceful disconnect; in theory most (all?) protocol versions could support it without issue. But changing this to even v4 would require some additional testing and it's not abundantly clear there's a huge population in the intersection of v4 + graceful disconnect.
It's also something we can change if we get pushback. A very reasonable compromise is to roll out the initial version with explicit support for v5 only and expand that to v4 if users register complaints.
I'm stealing most of this from some observations made by @SiyaoIsHiding in direct conversation recently. I believe she's going to be posting a follow-up to this effect in the not-too-distant future... I'm just noting it here since she asked me to take a look at this code. :)
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.