-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 492
storage: introduce dyncfg, and shift one config over #26076
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
danhhz
left a comment
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.
yesssssss
| enable_dependency_read_hold_asserts: config.enable_dependency_read_hold_asserts(), | ||
| user_storage_managed_collections_batch_duration: config | ||
| .user_storage_managed_collections_batch_duration(), | ||
| dyncfg_updates: Some(config.dyncfg_updates()), |
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.
this makes the copy in PersistParameters above redundant, we should probably remove that one
persist: PersistParameters {
config_updates: config.dyncfg_updates(),
},
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.
I was able to delete this AND PersistParameters entirely!
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.
Oh that's awesome!
danhhz
left a comment
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.
LGTM, thanks!
rjobanp
left a comment
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.
Just some nits to leave some better in-code comments explaining the semantics of when we populate the dyncfg_updates field and when we don't
|
@rjobanp added some comments! merging! |
Mostly copied #25513, but with 2 differences:
Arc<ConfigSet>because in storage rendering we clone theStorageConfigurationstruct for convenience.StorageParametersin memory in the storage controller and each worker in the storage state, as opposed to copying all the fields into another struct. In this case, I just leftdyncfg_updatesNone.Motivation
Checklist
$T ⇔ Proto$Tmapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with aT-protolabel.