Conversation
|
@popduke Would you mind taking a look at this PR? |
|
First of all, thank you for voluntarily picking up a TODO. However, I don’t think this change is necessary. The TODO you selected is somewhat outdated (it should have been removed). The config-change operation exposed through the BaseKV client requires tight coordination between the WAL and the FSM, and the interaction no longer depends on routing config-change requests among Raft peers. Also, this change touches a very low-level part of the system and would imply modifications to the cluster communication protocol, which could have compatibility implications. It’s not something suitable for a direct PR. If you believe the change is needed, I would suggest starting with a Proposal on the community side first (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BIFROMQ/BIP-000-Template). |
Okay, could you please give me some small tasks to work on? |
|
@hageshiame Thanks for reaching out. If you’re interested in raft or low-level storage, a good starting point could be benchmarking and testing the impact of your changes. Additionally, you could leverage available tools to help verify the overall correctness of the system after changing. |
|
I conducted a Raft benchmark test; would you mind taking a look at the results? PR#205 |
Related to issue-203