[SERVER-17528] if votes>0, priority must be >0 Created: 10/Mar/15 Updated: 16/Mar/17 Resolved: 16/Mar/17 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Replication |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 3.2.0 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Eric Milkie | Assignee: | Eric Milkie |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | elections | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Minor Change | ||||||||||||||||
| Operating System: | ALL | ||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | RPL 7 08/10/15, RPL 8 08/31/15 | ||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||
| Comments |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 16/Mar/17 ] |
|
Re-opening to change resolution to 'Fixed' since there was an actual commit done on this ticket that changed behavior. |
| Comment by Eric Milkie [ 07/Aug/15 ] |
|
After some discussion, I think unelectable voters should be fine in a replica set. There is no way one could prevent the election of at least one node in a replica set. |
| Comment by Githook User [ 07/Aug/15 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'scotthernandez', u'name': u'Scott Hernandez', u'email': u'scotthernandez@gmail.com'}Message: |
| Comment by Scott Hernandez (Inactive) [ 05/Aug/15 ] |
|
Basic Rules:
|
| Comment by Andy Schwerin [ 10/Mar/15 ] |
|
Maybe nodes with votes: 1 and priority: 0 could act identically to arbiters, that coincidentally had data. They'd have to use the arbiter rules for deciding who to vote for, rather than the data-bearing node rules. |