David, thanks for the KIP! When an unclean election is performed, I'm assuming we will ignore the two new invariants proposed in the KIP? If so, maybe we should clarify that.
I understand the use case of persisting the in-controller-shutdown state for controller failover, but are we planning on using this state on the leader side for ISR eligibility? Or will we just rely on the controller to check this state. I think we should bump the IBP/MetadataVersion since we are adding a new field to a metadata record. Otherwise we might have trouble downgrading the software if this field has been serialized. Cheers, David On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 11:04 AM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi José, > > At the moment, the KIP stipulates that the broker remains in > InControlledShutdown state until it is re-registered with a new > incarnation id. This implies that a broker can be both fenced and in > controlled shutdown state. We could make them mutually exclusive but I > think that there is value in the current proposal because we are able > to differentiate if a broker was fenced due to the controlled shutdown > or not. > > Best, > David > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 7:32 PM José Armando García Sancio > <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the updates to the KIP. > > > > I like enumerating invariants. Is it safe to say that if > > `InControlledShutdown` is true then `Fenced` must be false. > -- David Arthur
