Skip to content

Introduce a new transaction type for reading from secondary replicas #110

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 26, 2021
Merged

Introduce a new transaction type for reading from secondary replicas #110

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
93f60d3
Add read secondary
Jan 22, 2021
68cb20d
Allow performing reads to secondary replica. Update stale terminology
Jan 25, 2021
ada1b4c
Update field number
Jan 25, 2021
6d5a5e1
Update field name
Jan 26, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion protobuf/cluster/database.proto
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ message Database {
message Replica {
string address = 1;
string database = 2;
bool is_leader = 3;
bool is_primary = 3;
int64 term = 4;
}
}
Expand Down
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions protobuf/options.proto
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -44,4 +44,7 @@ message Options {
oneof schema_lock_acquire_timeout_opt {
int32 schema_lock_acquire_timeout_millis = 6;
}
oneof primary_replica_opt {
bool primary_replica = 7;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if primary_replica is misleading because it could be switched off and the primary replica might still be used. What do you think of the following alternatives:

  • require_primary_replica
  • allow_secondary_replica

Or do you think we should stick with primary_replica for conciseness?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed in 6d5a5e1.

}
}