-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ZOOKEEPER-4541 Ephemeral znode owned by closed session visible in 1 of 3 servers #1925
Changes from all commits
e670dac
0444ede
02d9f8a
96f2104
83812a9
4aab1fd
ed275cb
51663e1
47eb1e8
84be071
ffa326b
840808c
882d640
5f5834b
3483274
0507f7c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -155,11 +155,11 @@ protected void unregisterMetrics() { | |
} | ||
|
||
@Override | ||
public synchronized void shutdown() { | ||
public synchronized void shutdown(boolean fullyShutDown) { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm a little worried about the modification here has an impact on the invoking chain. Before modification: Leader.shutdown(String) -> LeaderZooKeeperServer.shutdown() -> ZooKeeperServer.shutdown() LeaderZooKeeperServer.shutdown is skipped and containerManager does not stop. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
|
||
if (containerManager != null) { | ||
containerManager.stop(); | ||
} | ||
super.shutdown(); | ||
super.shutdown(fullyShutDown); | ||
} | ||
|
||
@Override | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
does this need to be a new processor? could we inline this into the SyncRequestProcessor?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doesn't need to, but I found the
SyncRequestProcessor
to be complicated enough already, and this was a separate set of concerns, so I felt it was cleaner to put it in a separate processor.