-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.9k
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.
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
[DOCS] add comment to clarify cluster name resolution #34014
[DOCS] add comment to clarify cluster name resolution #34014
Conversation
We currently fallback to local indices whenever a remote cluster is not found, as there may still be indices / aliases with the same name. Such behaviour is lenient but needs to be kept for backwards compatibility. Clarified that in the code so we don't forget.
Pinging @elastic/es-search-aggs |
@@ -242,6 +243,10 @@ static DiscoveryNode buildSeedNode(String clusterName, String address, boolean p | |||
perClusterIndices.computeIfAbsent(clusterName, k -> new ArrayList<>()).add(indexName); | |||
} | |||
} else { | |||
//Indices can be created with ":" in their names only up to 5.6, and still be there up to 6.last, but aliases may be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think both alias and index names can have :
in the name until 6.last? https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/blob/6.x/server/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/cluster/metadata/MetaDataCreateIndexService.java#L170
This validation method is both used for alias and index names. From 6.0 we log a deprecation warning, but not fail it. From 7.0 we fail such index or alias nems
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you are right, I thought that we introduced index name validation for that earlier compared to aliases. I will update.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I pushed an update, thanks for double checking this Martijn.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
We currently fallback to local indices whenever a remote cluster is not found, as there may still be indices / aliases with the same name. Such behaviour is lenient but needs to be kept for backwards compatibility. Clarified that in the code so we don't forget. Relates to elastic#26247
We currently fallback to local indices whenever a remote cluster is not found, as there may still be indices / aliases with the same name. Such behaviour is lenient but needs to be kept for backwards compatibility. Clarified that in the code so we don't forget. Relates to #26247
We currently fallback to local indices whenever a remote cluster is not found, as there may still be indices / aliases with the same name. Such behaviour is lenient but needs to be kept for backwards compatibility. Clarified that in the code so we don't forget.
Relates to #26247