Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1153#discussion_r41128753
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/leaderelection/LeaderElectionService.java
---
@@ -67,4 +67,20 @@
* @return true if the associated {@link LeaderContender} is the
leader, otherwise false
*/
boolean hasLeadership();
+
+ /**
+ * [EXPERIMENTAL] Returns <code>true</code> if the {@link
LeaderContender} is leader. A call
+ * to this method might block.
+ *
+ * <p>This forces a synchronous check at the respective state backend.
It is possible
+ * that is does not reflect the current state at the {@link
LeaderContender}, which is notified
+ * asynchronously. Therefore it is possible that {@link
#hasLeadership()} and {@link
+ * #syncHasLeadership()} have different return values.
+ *
+ * @TODO @tillrohrmann Is it OK to collapse this with {@link
#hasLeadership()}?
+ *
+ * @return true if the associated {@link LeaderContender} is the
leader, otherwise false
+ */
+ boolean syncHasLeadership();
--- End diff --
Yes, I am aware of this. This was suggested in order to decrease the
chances of running into the problem. I'm fine with using hasLeaderShip. The
synchronous read covers the case where the state is updated in ZooKeeper, but
the notification didn't happen yet.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
