Do we shut ourselves out of the possibility to ever re-assigning the replica types, by using this naming convention? For example, is there any conceivable scenario in future whereby an NRT replica can become a TLOG replica? Never mind my asking if this flexibility is something we're sure we'll never need.
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Tomas Fernandez Lobbe <tflo...@apple.com> wrote: > Hi Erick, > This change is part of replica types. I mentioned this in SOLR-10233, but > you are right, I should have mentioned probably in the dev list to get to > more people. The last character represents the type of replica (n->NRT, > t->TLOG, p->PULL). This is certainly not required and can be reverted back > if people has concerns. I found it very useful when developing and I think > it will also be helpful in prod, since the replica name is present in most > log entries (since the MDC logging changes). > > Tomás > > > On May 30, 2017, at 8:54 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I noticed recently that our replica names are changing (master only?) > > to collection_shard1_replica_n1. Why? > > > > Mostly I wan to be sure we consider whether this change is worth the > > confusion before it gets out into the wild. If it's just an aesthetic > > change I question whether it's worth the confusion it'll generate. If > > it serves a real purpose, that's another story.. > > > > Erick > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
