J-HowHuang commented on code in PR #15110:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/15110#discussion_r1979922019
##########
pinot-controller/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/controller/helix/core/assignment/instance/InstanceAssignmentDriver.java:
##########
@@ -55,40 +55,64 @@ public InstanceAssignmentDriver(TableConfig tableConfig) {
public InstancePartitions assignInstances(InstancePartitionsType
instancePartitionsType,
List<InstanceConfig> instanceConfigs, @Nullable InstancePartitions
existingInstancePartitions) {
+ return assignInstances(instancePartitionsType, instanceConfigs,
existingInstancePartitions, false);
+ }
+
+ public InstancePartitions assignInstances(InstancePartitionsType
instancePartitionsType,
+ List<InstanceConfig> instanceConfigs, @Nullable InstancePartitions
existingInstancePartitions,
+ boolean forceMinimizeDataMovement) {
Review Comment:
Is it safe to assume that the scope of the value override could be
constrained within this single rebalance operation? One concern I had was that
I was not sure whether there will be other operations trying to make use of
this `minimizeDataMovement` value from the table config. Current implementation
is to avoid that potential misreading.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
