refactor: remove is_incremental=true for ImageLayers footgun #5061
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
koivunej
requested review from
conradludgate and
skyzh
and removed request for
a team
koivunej
commented
Aug 22, 2023
|
This has a boring clippy, I will fix it after remove_remote_layer_6 has been merged. |
1624 tests run: 1550 passed, 0 failed, 74 skipped (full report)The comment gets automatically updated with the latest test results
536c051 at 2023-08-22T18:45:15.048Z :recycle: |
arpad-m
requested changes
Aug 22, 2023
| @@ -623,7 +618,6 @@ impl ImageLayerWriterInner { | |||
| self.timeline_id, | |||
| self.key_range.clone(), | |||
| self.lsn, | |||
| self.is_incremental, // for now, image layer ALWAYS covers the full range | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe there should be an assert/warning/bail here to ensure that self.is_incremental is false?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking of adding one to load_layer_map, but here it cannot be true, because there's no such bool.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you mean here that I forgot to remove the is_incremental from ImageLayerWriter?
EDIT: It does not seem so. Okay, must've just botched the rebase.
problame
reviewed
Aug 22, 2023
problame
reviewed
Aug 22, 2023
problame
reviewed
Aug 22, 2023
problame
reviewed
Aug 22, 2023
koivunej
force-pushed
the
remove_remote_layer_7
branch
3 times, most recently
from
97d1443
to
258c265
Compare
arpad-m
approved these changes
Aug 22, 2023
problame
approved these changes
Aug 22, 2023
Yeah I don't feel like I have much insight into removing more, except for this infuriating api removed here. |
koivunej
force-pushed
the
remove_remote_layer_6
branch
from
118aa38
to
e3cf790
Compare
koivunej
force-pushed
the
remove_remote_layer_7
branch
from
258c265
to
0f117eb
Compare
koivunej
force-pushed
the
remove_remote_layer_7
branch
from
0f117eb
to
536c051
Compare
koivunej
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 26, 2023
…#4938) Implement a new `struct Layer` abstraction which manages downloadness internally, requiring no LayerMap locking or rewriting to download or evict providing a property "you have a layer, you can read it". The new `struct Layer` provides ability to keep the file resident via a RAII structure for new layers which still need to be uploaded. Previous solution solved this `RemoteTimelineClient::wait_completion` which lead to bugs like #5639. Evicting or the final local deletion after garbage collection is done using Arc'd value `Drop`. With a single `struct Layer` the closed open ended `trait Layer`, `trait PersistentLayer` and `struct RemoteLayer` are removed following noting that compaction could be simplified by simply not using any of the traits in between: #4839. The new `struct Layer` is a preliminary to remove `Timeline::layer_removal_cs` documented in #4745. Preliminaries: #4936, #4937, #5013, #5014, #5022, #5033, #5044, #5058, #5059, #5061, #5074, #5103, epic #5172, #5645, #5649. Related split off: #5057, #5134.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Accidentially giving is_incremental=true for ImageLayers costs a lot of debugging time. Removes all API which would allow to do that. They can easily be restored later when needed.
Split off from #4938, builds upon #5059 for no obvious reason, could be separated.