[Pulp-dev] #2186 (pulp-manage-db) options

[Bihan Zhang]

The changes made for #2186 [0] was pulled from the 2.11.0 release
yesterday, and we should talk about how to implement it for 2.12

>From what I can see there are 2 ways to move forward with #2186

*1.* We can fix the pulp worker db record cleanup so that pulp_celerybeat
exits cleanly (aka put this back: [1]) and make new changes to clean up
pulp_workers with a SIGTERM handler in a 2.11.z release.
We can then re-revert the commit and put the feature back in 2.12 with
little effort.

The original reason #2186 was implemented using the db records was so we
can support a clustered pulp installation.
But this approach would make migration to 2.12 more difficult, since users
now have to upgrade to the 2.11.z release first before going to 2.12

*2. *We can rethinking our approach to #2186 and perform the check against
the process list
Upgrade-wise implementing it this way is a lot easier for users, since they
can do a straight upgrade to 2.12 without going through an intermediary
release.
The downside is that in clustered environments this would not catch every
potential error. But #2186 is a best effort story, and if this is the best
effort I am ok with it.

Regardless of which option we go with I think we should get the pulp worker
db cleanup in.
We should also have a --ignore-running-worker flag [2] to prevent automated
upgrade problems.


[0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2186
[1]
https://github.com/werwty/pulp/commit/4f43a85dd568f4a0b50ae9b07bbec7138861e92b#diff-80e8b96df1f5da9a551bb6ff18dea352
[2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2469
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20161208/2a3a6b11/attachment.htm>