[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11489?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16420892#comment-16420892
]
Tomás Fernández Löbbe commented on SOLR-11489:
----------------------------------------------
I don’t really like this idea. I think it’s an abstraction that doesn’t give us
much and can complicate how Solr works, in addition to braking things users may
have built to monitor/operate Solr.
For example, collection APIs work on collections, but now they’ll have to start
reading aliases? things like metrics will include the collection name or the
alias? logging keys (MDC stuff) will print collections, not aliases I guess,
etc.
I'm personally happy with the way aliases and collections work right now. There
may be bugs that need to be fixed and/or improvements to tests, but I don't
think we need to do a core change like this.
bq. As long as we consciously decide not to support my above scenario that's
perfectly valid, just making sure it's considered...
I agree with [~varunthacker] in SOLR-11488, this is a very useful feature and
we should continue to support it.
> Create collections as _foo and auto-create an alias foo->_foo
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-11489
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11489
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Reporter: Erick Erickson
> Priority: Major
>
> Spin-off from SOLR-11488. Currently if a collection and an alias have the
> same name we don't test how they're resolved. So an innocent change to the
> code could easily change the behavior (what happens when you have a
> collection old, and an alias old->new and delete collection "old"? Have we
> even defined what _should_ happen?).
> See the discussion at SOLR-11488.
> An alternative proposal to SOLR-11488 (thanks Varun for pointing it out) is
> when creating a collection "foo", actually name it _foo and create an alias
> foo->_foo. Also don't allow the user to create an alias that begins with an
> underscore (and maybe the same for collections? An alias _foo->__foo starts
> to get weird).
> The result would be we'd never have a collection and an alias with the same
> name, which would go a long way to prevent issues going forward.
> This requires we consider the name in state.json to be an implementation
> detail, but the user won't notice. Potential here for the list of aliases to
> be quite large.
> Of course the user could still reference the collection directly as _foo if
> they insisted.
> Establishing this JIRA for discussion of the alternatives.
> Assigning to myself to keep it from getting lost, feel free to take it over
> if you'd like.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
