Skip to content

Check exclusive owner before durable argument #1888

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 3 commits into from
Feb 18, 2019

Conversation

lukebakken
Copy link
Collaborator

@lukebakken lukebakken commented Feb 17, 2019

Fixes #1887

See #1887 for code to reproduce the issue.

With this PR, the error makes more sense:

Exception (405) Reason: "RESOURCE_LOCKED - cannot obtain exclusive access to locked queue 'test_qqq' in vhost '/'"

@lukebakken lukebakken changed the title Check exclusive owner before durable argument WIP: Check exclusive owner before durable argument Feb 18, 2019
@lukebakken lukebakken removed the request for review from michaelklishin February 18, 2019 16:14
@lukebakken lukebakken changed the title WIP: Check exclusive owner before durable argument Check exclusive owner before durable argument Feb 18, 2019
See #1887 for context. When an exclusive queue is redeclared with
the exclusive property set to `false`, the code considers it to be
an ownership check. This is a leaked implementation detail that's
been around for years, so changing it might do more harm than good.

What we can do is provide a bit more information about when the
check might fail in the message.
@michaelklishin michaelklishin merged commit d680193 into master Feb 18, 2019
@michaelklishin michaelklishin deleted the rabbitmq-server-1887 branch February 18, 2019 18:50
lukebakken pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 18, 2019
Check exclusive owner before durable argument

(cherry picked from commit d680193)
@lukebakken
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Backported to v3.7.x

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants