Skip to content
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

Make dropExisting flag for Compaction configurable and add warning documentations #11070

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Apr 9, 2021

Conversation

maytasm
Copy link
Contributor

@maytasm maytasm commented Apr 6, 2021

Make dropExisting flag for Compaction configurable and add warning documentations

Description

In PR #11025 I have introduced a new option for ingestion task to drop (mark unused) all existing segments that are contained by the interval in the ingestionSpec. However, it was pointed out after the PR was merged that this new option can cause temporary data unavailability for data within the specified interval of the ingestion task. Compaction task created manually and by auto compaction were hardcoded to always use the new dropExisting flag in PR #11025. This PR make dropExisting flag for Compaction task configurable and set the default behavior when dropExisting is not specified to not use the dropExisting functionality (which is the same behavior as before the PR #11025). This PR also adds documentation with warning to temporary data unavailability if dropExisting flag is used.

This PR does not contain the fix for this problem yet. The fix will come later.

This PR has:

  • been self-reviewed.
  • added documentation for new or modified features or behaviors.
  • added Javadocs for most classes and all non-trivial methods. Linked related entities via Javadoc links.
  • added or updated version, license, or notice information in licenses.yaml
  • added comments explaining the "why" and the intent of the code wherever would not be obvious for an unfamiliar reader.
  • added unit tests or modified existing tests to cover new code paths, ensuring the threshold for code coverage is met.
  • added integration tests.
  • been tested in a test Druid cluster.

@jihoonson
Copy link
Contributor

@asdf2014 I removed the 0.21.0 milestone because this PR is a follow-up of #11025 which was merged into only master.

@loquisgon
Copy link

LGTM

@asdf2014
Copy link
Member

asdf2014 commented Apr 8, 2021

@jihoonson Sure, thanks.

@maytasm
Copy link
Contributor Author

maytasm commented Apr 8, 2021

@asdf2014
I don't think this PR needs the "Design Review" tag as it does not introduce any major architectural, backwards incompatible changes, or changes which have long-term maintenance consequences. The actual feature was introduced in #11025. This PR simply adds a feature flag to the feature introduce in #11025, and does not introduce or modify any feature. This PR is also not a breaking change.

Copy link
Contributor

@zachjsh zachjsh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@maytasm maytasm merged commit 4576152 into apache:master Apr 9, 2021
@maytasm maytasm deleted the IMPLY-6631 branch April 9, 2021 07:12
@clintropolis clintropolis added this to the 0.22.0 milestone Aug 12, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants