On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Joseph Lynch <joe.e.ly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, I didn't realize that id was the puid! Let me try that out! > > So just curious, if the puid is what we're using to uniquely identify > servers, why can't we update the name dynamically? It seems like > use-server and the like should use these puids rather than the names? > > -Joey > > Because most configurations doesn't enforce the configuration 'id' (aka server->puid). So the most reliable piece of information we have is what the human has entered, hence the server "name" (aka server->id). We may explore a way to improve things like, adding a flag when a server->puid was enforced by configuration, so we know it's more reliable than server->id and we should prefer using it first. In a general manner, I think we should step back a bit and watch this "server-state" feature from a different angle, because I have the feeling that if we carry on like this, we may end up with a patchwork of exceptions that may be boring to manage and understand at some point. "server-state" is supposed to be used to give a new HAProxy process the status the servers had in a previous running process. Baptiste
