Hello Christopher, Thanks for your continuous support on this review :)
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:09 AM Christopher Faulet <cfau...@haproxy.com> wrote: > Thanks William, it seems good. I've just a question (sorry :). When the server > state file is loaded, why the check port is set only if there is a DNS > resolution ? I know it was done this way before the support of check_port > parameter in the server state. But I suppose that now we support it, it should > always be set, isn't it ? yes you are totally right. > And is there any usage to add "agent-addr" in the server state file? Because > it > can also be set on the CLI. And later, same question will appear for > "check-addr" and "agent-port". the general rule is indeed, anything which can be changed through the CLI should be loaded through server states. Truth is server states becomes a nightmare to manage; I don't remember if you were in the discussions a few months ago, but we concluded we should change that long term by https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/953 So while waiting for a proper solution, we are indeed supposed to keep server states up to date. > I don't want to bother you again. So, I propose you to merge the first patch > and > to add a new one to not set the check port when the server state file is > loaded. > Then I can merge the third patch and amend the second one to move the check > port > assignment before merging it. And finally I can merge the fourth and fifth > patches. Don't worry, I can send you a v4. -- William
