dragosvictor commented on code in PR #21668:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/21668#discussion_r1414692856
##########
pulsar-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/service/persistent/PersistentTopic.java:
##########
@@ -1473,6 +1486,9 @@ public CompletableFuture<Void> close(
lock.writeLock().lock();
try {
+ if (!disconnectClients) {
+ transferring = true;
Review Comment:
Just confirming that this flag is not meant to ever go back to `false`. Is
that the intent? As it is right now, publishing a message to a topic that was
transferred would lead to a `TopicClosedException`, whereas in the current
proposal the exception would be silenced forever.
##########
pulsar-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/service/Producer.java:
##########
@@ -485,6 +485,14 @@ public long getOriginalHighestSequenceId() {
@Override
public void completed(Exception exception, long ledgerId, long
entryId) {
if (exception != null) {
+ // if the topic is transferring, we don't send error code to
the clients.
+ if (producer.getTopic().isTransferring()) {
+ if (log.isDebugEnabled()) {
+ log.debug("[{}] Received producer exception: {} while
transferring.",
+ producer.getTopic().getName(),
exception.getMessage(), exception);
+ }
+ return;
+ }
Review Comment:
Would we still need to execute the code inside the lambda below, except the
error sending? There's other cleanup operations being performed that can avoid
resource leaks.
--
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]
