Skip to content

feat: Add the option of a lower read consistency level#11345

Closed
mbarbon wants to merge 2 commits into
grafana:mainfrom
mbarbon:mbarbon/mimir-lower-read-consistency
Closed

feat: Add the option of a lower read consistency level#11345
mbarbon wants to merge 2 commits into
grafana:mainfrom
mbarbon:mbarbon/mimir-lower-read-consistency

Conversation

@mbarbon

@mbarbon mbarbon commented Apr 30, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

[Note that this MR contains a large amount of changes to vendor/ as it depends on this dskit PR]

Using a lower read consistency level allows trading lower consistency for higher availability.

Checklist

  • Tests updated.
  • Documentation added.
  • CHANGELOG.md updated - the order of entries should be [CHANGE], [FEATURE], [ENHANCEMENT], [BUGFIX].
  • about-versioning.md updated with experimental features.

mbarbon added 2 commits April 30, 2025 12:28
This can be set globally and overridden per tenant, and allows trading
availability for consistency.
@CLAassistant

CLAassistant commented Apr 30, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@pracucci pracucci left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A quick comment about the correctness (I left the rest of the team comment whether it's something desired for Mimir or not). If we want to allow partial query results, then it's not just about how we build the replication set but also we have to change the quorum logic, implemented in ring.DoBatchWithOptions() (quorum is implemented here).

@mbarbon

mbarbon commented May 1, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

A quick comment about the correctness (I left the rest of the team comment whether it's something desired for Mimir or not). If we want to allow partial query results, then it's not just about how we build the replication set but also we have to change the quorum logic, implemented in ring.DoBatchWithOptions() (quorum is implemented here).

@pracucci could you point out the logic that needs to be updated? I'm asking because I already looked at that code and I thought it did not need to be changed...

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution. This pull request has been marked as stale because it has had no activity in the last 150 days. It will be closed in 30 days if there is no further activity. If you need more time, you can add a comment to the PR.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the stale label Nov 23, 2025
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This pull request has been closed because it has been stale for 30 days with no activity. Feel free to reopen if you want to continue working on this.

@github-actions github-actions Bot closed this Dec 24, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants