Obviously, one would only be able to remove a stopped/disabled
worker.
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 4:34 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Right now, the balancer manager allows for a member to be
> disabled/stopped, but it cannot *remove* that member...
> Seems to me that that would be good, especially since
> we could always re-use that slot.
>
> That means you must fully implement locking against the backends table
> in any use context, determine that there are no workers using that specific
> backend, and then 'remove' it ('repurpose' it, really, since it's just another
> slot.) If there are any requests in-flight for that member, this will result
> in potentially bad collisions of misinformation.
>
> We usually ignore these mis-attributions, but I'm not sure that's feasible
> given all of the lb logic involved?
>
