NOTE: we're converting this to main 'named tap issues' ticket.
So what's not safe about reusing named taps as of 1.8.0?
If something happened to destination node after tap was disconnected. And if that something affected data for vbuckets replicated as part of named tap, then subsequent reuse of named tap will incorrectly assume that we can continue sending stuff instead of re-negotiating which data needs to be resent.
|For Gerrit Dashboard: &For+MB-4366=message:MB-4366|
|14827,2||reimplemented named tap fix for branch-18. MB-4366||ns_server||Status: MERGED||+2||+1|
|15066,1||Merge remote-tracking branch 'couchbase/branch-18'||ns_server||Status: MERGED||+2||+1|
|15121,1||fixed typo in start_vbucket_filter_change. MB-4366||ns_server||Status: MERGED||+2||+1|
|15123,1||Merge branch 'branch-181'||ns_server||Status: ABANDONED||0||0|
|15199,1||Merge branch 'branch-181'||ns_server||Status: ABANDONED||0||0|
|15200,1||Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/branch-181' into branch-18||ns_server||Status: MERGED||+2||+1|
|15201,1||Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/branch-18' into merge||ns_server||Status: MERGED||+2||+1|