[PATCH] CTDB recovery lock fixes and more scary example setting (bug #13790)

[Amitay Isaacs]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:38 PM Martin Schwenke <martin at meltin.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:43:51 +1100, Amitay Isaacs <amitay at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:42 PM Martin Schwenke via samba-technical
> > <samba-technical at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The motivation for this patch set is that someone who works a lot with
> > > CTDB told me that the example setting in 4.9 isn't scary enough.  It is
> > > too easy for an admin to simply uncomment it in the installed example
> > > configuration file and then struggle to understand the likely failure
> > > mode (i.e. nodes other than the recovery master are able to take the
> > > recovery lock).
> > >
> > > So, I'd like 4.10 to have a scarier default.  :-)
> > >
> > > So, why is it a patch set rather than a single patch?
> > >
> > > * I really want an invalid recovery lock setting to cause a node to be
> > >   banned.  This makes the misconfiguration more obvious.
> > >
> > > * There was no test for the case where the recovery lock is explicitly
> > >   set to use a helper (as opposed to a lock file).
> > >
> > > * The code that constructs the command-line arguments for the helper
> > >   was awful.
> > >
> > > Please review and maybe push...
> >
> > As discussed offline, let's split the fixes into 2 separate bugs.
> >
> > #13790 for config changes
> > #13800 for recovery lock fixes  (this requires additional patch for
> > enabling timeout in getting recovery lock)
>
> Attached.
>
> Please review and maybe push...
>
> peace & happiness,
> martin

Pushed to autobuild.

Amitay.