[Pulp-dev] proposing changes to pulp 3 upload API

Michael Hrivnak mhrivnak at redhat.com
Tue Jun 27 17:24:29 UTC 2017

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:

> - The artifact FK to a content unit would need to become optional.
> - Need to add use cases for cleaning up artifacts not associated with a
> content unit.
> - The upload API would need additional information needed to create an
> artifact.  Like relative path, size,
> checksums etc.
> - Since (I assume) you are proposing uploading/writing directly to
> artifact storage (not staging in a working
> dir), the flow would need to involve (optional) validation.  If validation
> fails, the artifact must not be
> inserted into the DB.

Perhaps a decent middle ground would be to stick with the plan of keeping
uploaded (or partially uploaded) files as a separate model until they are
ready to be turned into a Content instance plus artifacts, and save their
file data directly to somewhere within /var/lib/pulp/. It would be some
path distinct from where Artifacts are stored. That's what I had imagined
we would do anyway. Then as Dennis pointed out, turning that into an
Artifact would only require a move operation on the same filesystem, which
is super-cheap.

Would that address all the concerns? We'd write the data just once, and
then move it once on the same filesystem. I haven't looked at django's
support for this recently, but it seems like it should be doable.


Michael Hrivnak

Principal Software Engineer, RHCE

Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170627/2c1f6b3c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list