ascherbakoff commented on a change in pull request #9352:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/9352#discussion_r762863800
##########
File path:
modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/GridCachePartitionExchangeManager.java
##########
@@ -3311,15 +3311,8 @@ private void body0() throws InterruptedException,
IgniteCheckedException {
if
(fut.topologyVersion().equals(lastAffChangedVer))
exchFut = fut;
else if
(lastAffChangedVer.after(exchId.topologyVersion())) {
- // There is a new exchange which should
trigger rebalancing.
- // This reassignment request can be
skipped.
- if (log.isInfoEnabled()) {
- log.info("Partitions reassignment
request skipped due to affinity was already changed" +
- " [reassignTopVer=" +
exchId.topologyVersion() +
- ", lastAffChangedTopVer=" +
lastAffChangedVer + ']');
- }
-
- continue;
+ exchFut = lastFut;
Review comment:
1) This modification doesn't look related to a described in the ticket
counter issue. Better to do it in a separate ticket or modify the ticket
description.
2) I'm not sure it's 100% correct, because lastAffChangedVer implies the
rebalancing is requred. New affinity can contain incompatible assignments, and
make the reassign obsolete. Can we keep this logic ?
3) The fut is always null in the assertion above:
```
assert fut.changedAffinity() :
"Reassignment request started for exchange future which didn't change
affinity " +
"[exchId=" + exchId + ", fut=" + exchFut + ']';
```
4) I would better rename `markNodeAsInapplicableForRebalance` to
`copyInapplicableNodesFrom`
--
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]
