are you using something build in-house?
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
>
> On 1/21/22 13:13, Jiří Syrový wrote:
> > I agree it sounds a bit off, but it seems that even a host that is not
> > marked as active allows me to query it's store and gives me a result that
> &g
t; not implement this part, my best guess at the moment is to blame it on a
> bug in the remote request implementation.
>
> Are you using some of-the-shelf implementation for the remove lookup
> part or are you using something build in-house?
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
>
&g
> partition I.
>
> This sound a little off. As you stated, if both instances agree on the
> active host, the active host must either be instance A or instance B,
> and thus you can query partition I only on instance A or instance B. The
> non-active instance should not return an
Hi everyone,
I'm trying for a while to answer myself a question about what are actually
guarantees for state stores in regards to consistency when connected to
transformers.
I have an application where a single (persistent, rocksdb backed) state
store is connected to multiple transformers. Each t
