fix: redirect client commands during snapshot transfer#612
Merged
kjnilsson merged 1 commit intorabbitmq:mainfrom Mar 27, 2026
Merged
Conversation
kjnilsson
approved these changes
Mar 27, 2026
Contributor
Absolutely no need to apologise for contributing good fixes. Thank you! :) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi — sorry, I know I said "last one" before, but I found one more that I think is worth fixing.
During snapshot transfer, handle_receive_snapshot doesn't have a clause for client commands or queries. They hit the catch-all and get a permanent {error, unsupported_call}. Since snapshot transfers can take a while, this means clients hitting this node during that window get hard errors instead of being redirected to the leader.
This adds handling so client requests get a proper rejection that lets the client rediscover the leader, similar to what was done for await_condition in #610.