[Pulp-dev] pulp3: task - worker relationship
pcreech at redhat.com
Thu Nov 17 21:06:31 UTC 2016
On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 15:33 -0500, Brian Bouterse wrote:
> +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.
TLDR: I prefer this
This is the approach I was just thinking about. In some environments I've worked in, the 'delete'
general concept even is to set a flag of some sort to manage state instead of deleting the data. To
add a simple state variable of some kind to the worker would be the most robust solution. This
allows us to preserve data instead of losing it, etc...
> ... 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'd prefer to not SET_NULL unless the above suggestion proves too complicated.
> Thanks for bringing his up; we need to take some action.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Pulp-dev