[Pulp-dev] pulp3: task - worker relationship

[Dennis Kliban]

----- Original Message -----
> +1 to taking an action on this. The SET_NULL approach sounds fine with me for
> now. It is so simple. It does not help with the later log analysis though
> which I do think is useful, but maybe not something we need to facilitate
> with the MVP.
> 
> To brainstorm another idea, what if instead of deleting workers, we keep
> those records for much longer. With the same reasoning as Task, it would be
> useful to post-mortem analyze when workers are coming on and offline for
> example. FYI, the Worker table is exclusively managed by pulp_celerybeat. We
> could introduce a online boolean to the Worker model and update
> pulp_celerybeat to mark workers as online/offline instead of deleting them.
> I don't think this would be difficult to do or get right. It would solve the
> issue of the cascading deletes, provide the Task analysis use case, and
> provide the Worker analysis use case too. I would rather do this than add an
> additional field to Task.
> 
> I would be fine with either of ^ approaches, but I hope we don't add an
> additional field to Task. We could use SET_NULL for the 3.0 MVP and save
> this as a future refactor/bugfix. It's probably a bug for that field to
> become NULL when a worker is deleted. What do others think about this?

I would prefer that we add a boolean to the worker models that indicated the online/offline state. 

> 
> Thanks for bringing his up; we need to take some action.
> 
> -Brian
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Jeff Ortel < jortel at redhat.com > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/16/2016 05:27 PM, Sean Myers wrote:
> > On 11/16/2016 05:28 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote:
> >> Options:
> >> - We could set the policy to SET_NULL. When the worker entry gets deleted,
> >> the task would simply lose its record of which worker it ran on.
> > 
> > +1 to this.
> +1
> 
> > 
> > Since the worker no longer exists in that scenario, I don't think we lose
> > any
> > data there, right? A reference to a nonexistent worker is as good as NULL.
> > Do
> > we need to add a task scrubber to find tasks with NULL workers and make
> > sure
> > they get reassigned? We could also use SET() here, and pass it a callable
> > that
> > sets it to an extant worker pk, but at the moment I think I prefer
> > SET_NULL.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pulp-dev mailing list
> > Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>