Skip to content
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

Delete isolationLevel and locationLabels from placement rules #4540

Closed
xhebox opened this issue Jan 5, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

Delete isolationLevel and locationLabels from placement rules #4540

xhebox opened this issue Jan 5, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
type/feature-request Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.

Comments

@xhebox
Copy link
Contributor

xhebox commented Jan 5, 2022

Feature Request

Describe your feature request related problem

Refer pingcap/tidb#31052, maybe delete isolationLevel and locationLabels from placement rules. And just use the global configuration.

Describe the feature you'd like

Describe alternatives you've considered

Teachability, Documentation, Adoption, Migration Strategy

@xhebox xhebox added the type/feature-request Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature. label Jan 5, 2022
@xhebox
Copy link
Contributor Author

xhebox commented Jan 5, 2022

/cc @nolouch @disksing

@CalvinNeo
Copy link
Member

CalvinNeo commented Jan 5, 2022

Currently, TiFlash relies on ALTER TABLE table_name SET TIFLASH REPLICA count LOCATION LABELS location_labels, which can specify location labels for TiFlash.

I think a global configuration may not overrides TiFlash's location labels configuration, otherwise it may lead to a behavior change.

@nolouch
Copy link
Contributor

nolouch commented Jan 5, 2022

@CalvinNeo @solotzg
What scenario will use this syntax? Does TiKV is consist with TiFlash?

@xhebox xhebox closed this as completed May 29, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type/feature-request Categorizes issue or PR as related to a new feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants