[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12767?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16612887#comment-16612887
]
Erick Erickson commented on SOLR-12767:
---------------------------------------
{quote} #1 is still valuable, but there isn’t much point of making the
parameter an integer, the user is just telling Solr that they want the achieved
replication factor, so it could be a boolean,
{quote}
I question this. The scenario is this:
* Someone can't re-index from source
* They need to be really, really, really _sure_ the doc gets indexed
So even being guaranteed that the doc is replicated isn't enough in the
unlikely scenario that the leader and the one replica that the doc happened to
replicate to die at the same time.
Maybe not enough of a window to allow for, but that's the concern.
> Deprecate min_rf
> ----------------
>
> Key: SOLR-12767
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12767
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Reporter: Tomás Fernández Löbbe
> Priority: Major
>
> Currently the {{min_rf}} parameter does two things.
> 1. It tells Solr that the user wants to keep track of the achieved
> replication factor
> 2. (undocumented AFAICT) It prevents Solr from putting replicas in recovery
> if the achieved replication factor is lower than the {{min_rf}} specified
> #2 is intentional and I believe the reason behind it is to prevent replicas
> to go into recovery in cases of short hiccups (since the assumption is that
> the user is going to retry the request anyway). This is dangerous because if
> the user doesn’t retry (or retries a number of times but keeps failing) the
> replicas will be permanently inconsistent. Also, since we now retry updates
> from leaders to replicas, this behavior has less value, since short temporary
> blips should be recovered by those retries anyway.
> I think we should remove the behavior described in #2, #1 is still valuable,
> but there isn’t much point of making the parameter an integer, the user is
> just telling Solr that they want the achieved replication factor, so it could
> be a boolean, but I’m thinking we probably don’t even want to expose the
> parameter, and just always keep track of it, and include it in the response.
> It’s not costly to calculate, so why keep two separate code paths?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
