wirybeaver commented on PR #15203: URL: https://github.com/apache/pinot/pull/15203#issuecomment-2970359313
> You can also take a look at the [MultiStageReplicaGroupSelector](https://github.com/apache/pinot/blob/6e8e3d2984d8853b85f48552bda4fe3348cf91aa/pinot-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/broker/routing/instanceselector/MultiStageReplicaGroupSelector.java#L57) instance selector implementation for reference, which actually tries to select all servers from a chosen replica group (not instance pool). We should either rework the priority replica group routing feature from this PR to actually use Pinot's replica groups, and not instance pools if that's what is really desired, or else rename everything added here to use the pools terminology instead of replica groups. > > In any case though, if you don't think these changes can be made before the next Pinot OSS release, we should revert this PR immediately IMO. Yeah, I will use the pool terminology. useFixedReplica is not a good idea. Let say a replica group is distributed among multiple pools (zones), from the point of isolation view as well as colocation join, it doesn't make any sense. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pinot.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@pinot.apache.org
