Changing the script so reconnections to the master also works following a failover #2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…pon failure (due to failover/switchover). The problem, as I left wrote as a comment in the code, 'a recently promoted/demoted server may still be transitioning and initially reply with the previous role' - that's valid both ways
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changing the script so a connection directed to a master reconnects upon failure (due to failover/switchover). The problem, as I left wrote as a comment in the code, 'a recently promoted/demoted server may still be transitioning and initially reply with the previous role' - that's valid both ways. For example, note how it switches to "read-mode" just after failing over:
It is more critical when doing reads and then the replica is promoted as master and does a write (!):
I'm sending the pull request but I'm not 100% confident this is the way.
Alternatively, we can put a "sleep" of a few seconds to avoid this - unless there is a different/transparent way we can prevent writes to a read-only connection (to port 5001).