Skip to content

Remove special handling of backfills in scheduler#42678

Merged
dstandish merged 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom
astronomer:aip-78-remove-special-handling-of-backfill-in-scheduler
Oct 3, 2024
Merged

Remove special handling of backfills in scheduler#42678
dstandish merged 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom
astronomer:aip-78-remove-special-handling-of-backfill-in-scheduler

Conversation

@dstandish
Copy link
Contributor

@dstandish dstandish commented Oct 2, 2024

Before airflow 3.0, scheduler would completely ignore all backfill runs. This PR gets rid of that logic so that backfill runs are treated the same as non-backfill. This is a baby step on the way to adding scheduling of backfill dag runs into the scheduler.

@boring-cyborg boring-cyborg bot added the area:Scheduler including HA (high availability) scheduler label Oct 2, 2024
@dstandish dstandish marked this pull request as ready for review October 2, 2024 22:28
@dstandish dstandish merged commit 982502e into apache:main Oct 3, 2024
@dstandish dstandish deleted the aip-78-remove-special-handling-of-backfill-in-scheduler branch October 3, 2024 02:31
joaopamaral pushed a commit to joaopamaral/airflow that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2024
Before airflow 3.0, scheduler would completely ignore all backfill runs. This PR gets rid of that logic so that backfill runs are treated the same as non-backfill. This is a baby step on the way to adding scheduling of backfill dag runs into the scheduler.
ellisms pushed a commit to ellisms/airflow that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2024
Before airflow 3.0, scheduler would completely ignore all backfill runs. This PR gets rid of that logic so that backfill runs are treated the same as non-backfill. This is a baby step on the way to adding scheduling of backfill dag runs into the scheduler.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area:Scheduler including HA (high availability) scheduler

Projects

No open projects

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants