Skip to content

Rename ILM history index enablement setting #51698

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 30, 2020

Conversation

dakrone
Copy link
Member

@dakrone dakrone commented Jan 30, 2020

The previous setting was index.lifecycle.history_index_enabled, this commit changes it to
indices.lifecycle.history_index_enabled to indicate this is not an index-level setting (it's node
level).

Related to #51678

The previous setting was `index.lifecycle.history_index_enabled`, this commit changes it to
`indices.lifecycle.history_index_enabled` to indicate this is not an index-level setting (it's node
level).
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/es-core-features (:Core/Features/ILM+SLM)

Copy link
Member

@rjernst rjernst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@dakrone dakrone merged commit 226fc40 into elastic:master Jan 30, 2020
@dakrone dakrone deleted the ilm-rename-history-setting branch January 30, 2020 21:34
dakrone added a commit to dakrone/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2020
* Rename ILM history index enablement setting

The previous setting was `index.lifecycle.history_index_enabled`, this commit changes it to
`indices.lifecycle.history_index_enabled` to indicate this is not an index-level setting (it's node
level).
dakrone added a commit to dakrone/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2020
* Rename ILM history index enablement setting

The previous setting was `index.lifecycle.history_index_enabled`, this commit changes it to
`indices.lifecycle.history_index_enabled` to indicate this is not an index-level setting (it's node
level).
dakrone added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2020
* Rename ILM history index enablement setting

The previous setting was `index.lifecycle.history_index_enabled`, this commit changes it to
`indices.lifecycle.history_index_enabled` to indicate this is not an index-level setting (it's node
level).
dakrone added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2020
* Rename ILM history index enablement setting

The previous setting was `index.lifecycle.history_index_enabled`, this commit changes it to
`indices.lifecycle.history_index_enabled` to indicate this is not an index-level setting (it's node
level).
probakowski added a commit to probakowski/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2020
…master_timeout

This changes setting name from `index.lifecycle.step.master_timeout` to
`indices.lifecycle.step.master_timeout` to avoid confusion about its scope.
`index.*` settings are recognized as index level settings, this one is node level.

Reletes to elastic#51698
probakowski added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2020
…master_timeout (#51744)

* Change index.lifecycle.step.master_timeout to indices.lifecycle.step.master_timeout

This changes setting name from `index.lifecycle.step.master_timeout` to
`indices.lifecycle.step.master_timeout` to avoid confusion about its scope.
`index.*` settings are recognized as index level settings, this one is node level.

Reletes to #51698
probakowski added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2020
…master_timeout (#51744) (#51761)

* Change index.lifecycle.step.master_timeout to indices.lifecycle.step.master_timeout

This changes setting name from `index.lifecycle.step.master_timeout` to
`indices.lifecycle.step.master_timeout` to avoid confusion about its scope.
`index.*` settings are recognized as index level settings, this one is node level.

Reletes to #51698
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants