From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-f54.google.com (mail-lf1-f54.google.com [209.85.167.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DE71469710 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:01:52 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-lf1-f54.google.com with SMTP id a9so12867223lfh.2 for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:01:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:01:48 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov Message-ID: <20201120110148.GA875895@grain> References: <20201119194100.840495-1-gorcunov@gmail.com> <20201119194100.840495-3-gorcunov@gmail.com> <2cb79b7d-b2f4-fc42-b707-31e109b0ff69@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <2cb79b7d-b2f4-fc42-b707-31e109b0ff69@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [RFC 2/4] qsync: move synchro quorum update to separate routine List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Serge Petrenko Cc: tml , Vladislav Shpilevoy On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 01:06:55PM +0300, Serge Petrenko wrote: >=20 > IMO it'd be better to name the new function somewhat similar=A0 to > `box_update_replication_synchro_quorum` and leave it in box.cc >=20 >=20 > This way you avoid adding 2 new dependencies to replication.cc > and leave all the code dealing with reconfiguration at one place. >=20 > Besides, replication.cc already depends on box, so it won't be a problem > to call update_replication_synchro_quorum there. Yeah, I don't mind, thanks! > Load_cfg.lua will say something similar, when replication_synchro_quorum = is > a number: >=20 > ``` >=20 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 log.info("set '%s' configuration option= to %s", key, > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 json.encode(val)) >=20 > ``` >=20 > So this say_info belongs to the trigger you invoke on replica > register/unregister. It will say "set ... to n+2/1" while we're printing the evaluated integer value which is more informative.