# Question related to pacificA: Elasticsearch's replication protocal **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [May 2, 2017, 10:49am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/question-related-to-pacifica-elasticsearchs-replication-protocal/84239 "2017-05-02T10:49:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![makeyang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@makeyang](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/makeyang)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 10:49am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/question-related-to-pacifica-elasticsearchs-replication-protocal/84239/1 "2017-05-02T10:49:02Z")
according to section of "Change of Primary" of paper: "During reconciliation, p sends prepare messages for uncommitted requests in its prepared list and have them committed on the new configuration" assume below scenario: primary sends a update request(we call it RN) with its configuration version and the serial number in a prepare message to all replicas and network partition happens, some replicas get this prepare message and put it into their prepared list while othres not. the old master will acked failed to client. then one secondary which get RN get master lease and "sends prepare messages for uncommitted requests in its prepared list and have them committed on the new configuration" by accidently, although the system achieve consistency, but the system have the date it shouldn't have. do I miss something? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2017, 10:53am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/question-related-to-pacifica-elasticsearchs-replication-protocal/84239/2 "2017-05-30T10:53:36Z")
Closed on May 30, 2017, 10:53am UTC This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.