Hi Raghu,

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 02:46:36PM +0530, Raghu Udiyar wrote:
> Hi Willy, Baptiste
> 
> I have been running this in production without any issues. Can you please
> review, verified that this will apply on current devel as well.

Thanks, however while looking if we had already merged it or not, I just
found that the exact same patch was already merged then reverted in
september last year :

  commit 19e8aa58f7c42e602a95b4ceb4b254c424aed11c
  Author: Nenad Merdanovic <[email protected]>
  Date:   Tue Sep 5 15:32:47 2017 +0200

    BUG/MINOR: server: Remove FQDN requirement for using init-addr and state 
file
    
    Historically the DNS was the only way of updating the server IP dynamically
    and the init-addr processing and state file load required the server to have
    an FQDN defined. Given that we can now update the IP through the socket as
    well and also can have different init-addr values (like IP and 'none') - 
this
    requirement needs to be removed.
    
    This patch should be backported to 1.7.

Then the revert and the explanation :

  commit 3d609a755e228cb6e601311e9268ad1eeac964e3
  Author: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
  Date:   Wed Sep 6 14:22:45 2017 +0200

    Revert "BUG/MINOR: server: Remove FQDN requirement for using init-addr and 
state file"
    
    This reverts commit 19e8aa58f7c42e602a95b4ceb4b254c424aed11c.
    
    It causes some trouble reported by Manu :
       listen tls
         [...]
         server bla 127.0.0.1:8080
    
       [ALERT] 248/130258 (21960) : parsing [/etc/haproxy/test.cfg:53] : 
'server bla' : no method found to resolve address '(null)'
       [ALERT] 248/130258 (21960) : Failed to initialize server(s) addr.
    
    According to Nenad :
      "It's not a good way to fix the issue we were experiencing
       before. It will need a bigger rewrite, because the logic in
       srv_iterate_initaddr needs to be changed."

Could you please try the example above in the commit message with and without
your patch ? Maybe the problem is still there, or maybe the logic change
mentioned by Nenad has already been done and this is no longer a problem,
in which case we could take your patch this time.

Thanks,
Willy

Reply via email to