On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:43 PM Drouvot, Bertrand <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 11/30/23 1:06 PM, Ajin Cherian wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:17 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > > > > 3. If creation of a slot on the standby fails for one slot because a > > slot of the same name exists, then thereafter no new sync slots are > > created on standby. Is this expected? I do see that previously created > > slots are kept up to date, just that no new slots are created after > > that. > > Yes this is the expected behavior as per discussion in [1]. > Does this behavior make sense to you? > Not completely. The chances of slots getting synced in this case seems order based. Every time a worker restarts after the error (considering the user has not taken corrective action yet), it will successfully sync the slots prior to the problematic one, while leaving the ones after that un-synced.
I need a little more clarity on what is the way for the user to know that the slot-sync worker (or any background worker for say) has error'ed out? Is it only from a log file or are there other mechanisms used for this? I mean, do ERRORs have better chances to catch user's attention than WARNING in the context of background worker? I feel we can give a second thought on this and see if it is more appropriate to keep on syncing the rest of the slots and skip the duplicate-name one? thanks Shveta
