-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
Conversation
5b5c612
to
e0c3d42
Compare
@@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ def test_purge_room(self): | |||
"local_invites", | |||
"room_account_data", | |||
"room_tags", | |||
"state_groups", | |||
# "state_groups", # Current impl leaves orphaned state groups around. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this the likely cause of #6566?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, yup, as we don't delete by room_id
on state_groups
but indirect via the events
table. That coupled with the fact that we now are more proactive with creating state groups that aren't referenced by events means we do end up with some orphaned bits and pieces.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, yup, as we don't delete by room_id on state_groups
Why not?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mainly so that we could avoid adding another index to state_groups
, but I think we might just want to do that anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
well, this lgtm as far as it goes. #6566 is a thing that we could do with a solution to.
* commit '19a1aac48': Fix purge_room admin API (#6711)
Fixes #6707