-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 336
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Leader election: disable duplicate LE in provisioner lib; add lock namespacing #296
Leader election: disable duplicate LE in provisioner lib; add lock namespacing #296
Conversation
…r election processes from running
/cc @msau42 |
@@ -178,7 +180,7 @@ func main() { | |||
} | |||
|
|||
// Create the provisioner: it implements the Provisioner interface expected by | |||
// the controller | |||
// the controllert |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
typo
92c9643
to
e557af7
Compare
/lgtm |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: msau42, verult The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Cherry-pick of #296: "Leader election: disable duplicate LE in provisioner lib; add lock namespacing"
Cherrypick of #296: "Leader election: disable duplicate LE in provisioner lib; add lock namespacing"
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it: Today there are two leader election processes running - one defined in external-provisioner main, one enabled in the provisioner controller lib by default. I ran into this problem when I set leader election type to lease - the external provisioner tries to do both lease-based and endpoint-based LE.
Also adding the ability to restrict the lock resource to specific namespaces.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: