From ef338ee3d4e1c16a5e863222531a0b5b12aff831 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrei Dan Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:42:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ILM DOCS: mention forcemerge is best effort (#54794) (#55401) (cherry picked from commit 3fd05435c52dd265dbe1a40104e7dc7a335d50ae) Signed-off-by: Andrei Dan --- docs/reference/ilm/policy-definitions.asciidoc | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/reference/ilm/policy-definitions.asciidoc b/docs/reference/ilm/policy-definitions.asciidoc index 98c2bd3a3d0..6d467e02526 100644 --- a/docs/reference/ilm/policy-definitions.asciidoc +++ b/docs/reference/ilm/policy-definitions.asciidoc @@ -301,7 +301,10 @@ Phases allowed: hot, warm. NOTE: Index will be be made read-only when this action is run (see: <>) -NOTE: If the `forcemerge` action is used in the `hot` phase, the `rollover` action *must* be preset. +NOTE: The `forcemerge` action is best effort. It might happen that some of the +shards are relocating, in which case they will not be merged. + +NOTE: If the `forcemerge` action is used in the `hot` phase, the `rollover` action *must* be present. ILM validates this predicate and will refuse a policy with a forcemerge in the hot phase without a rollover action.