> I don't think this should be done in a patch release. Are you opposed to the patch in its entirety, or just rejecting unsafe operations by default?
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 11:37 AM Chris Lohfink <clohfin...@gmail.com> wrote: > While the code touches quite a few places the change itself is > pretty innocuous but is massively impactful in bad scenarios. I am in favor > of this patch myself as this protects the database from data loss that > occurs in many different ways. An example I have seen recently (in 4.1) is > when using GPFS there's some sharp edges around nodes having the wrong view > of the cluster for short periods of time while bootstrapping that this > would have prevented. > > Chris > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 11:16 AM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 11:07 AM Caleb Rackliffe >> <calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > The one consequence of that we might discuss here is that if gossip is >> behind in notifying a node with a pending range, local rejection as it >> receives writes for that range may cause a small issue of availability. >> >> I don't think this should be done in a patch release. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Brandon >> >
