Haolin Wang
Haolin Wang
@litzell and @dyozie, as I checked this doc change is consistent with the code, so could you proceed to merge ?
I'm really hard to understand the commit message, could you describe it more straightforward and put the key point or problem before other detail explanation ? Thanks.
> EXCHANGE PARTITION, master changes the constraint/index name, it behaves differently with 6x: @QingMa-gp look, seems I'm not the only person who misunderstood your description, right ? ;D
@bradfordboyle Is this PR still needed to proceed ? Seems long time no activity, if no more action on this, is that OK to close ?
> Started to review this PR. Will try to provide most of my comments by this week. Thanks!
I have updated the code to incorporate with the comments and had a preliminary test against 6X_STABLE in the lab. The result as below: concurrency: 100 clients throttle record size:...
Thanks for reviewing this, @divyeshddv. I agree on taking the first commit forward and leave the second there for further evaluation.
@BaiShaoqi Does this PR still need further action ? Or is it OK to close if no need to proceed ?
Do we really need SO_REUSEADDR for non-binding ephemeral ports on QD (client of segment ?) side ?
> > Do we really need SO_REUSEADDR for non-binding ephemeral ports on QD (client) side? > > I thought it works for outgoing connections too, #577 said so. I will...