You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When the sequencer is first initialized, it takes the sequencing enabled & active status from the regular op-node config and state-persistence, but doesn't additionally check the leader-status with the conductor like it does upon sequencer start/stop.
Is this intentional? Should we make it check with the conductor, before allowing the sequencer to continue?
As part of the events-refactor of the sequencer code-path I noticed this, and I am wondering if it should change or not.
See #10991
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Great observation! This situation could happen, when starting sequencer, leadership transfer could happen and conductor could become a non-leader.
However, we don't need to do the check here because
there isn't really a way to guarantee that leadership does not transfer between the time we call startSequencer and it is actually started
and if the leadership transfer happened during that time, it is fine as sequencer won't be able to gossip its block out, and will shortly be turned off by a functioning conductor
When the sequencer is first initialized, it takes the sequencing enabled & active status from the regular op-node config and state-persistence, but doesn't additionally check the leader-status with the conductor like it does upon sequencer start/stop.
Is this intentional? Should we make it check with the conductor, before allowing the sequencer to continue?
As part of the events-refactor of the sequencer code-path I noticed this, and I am wondering if it should change or not.
See #10991
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: