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

Split big transaction in stale job detection #4955

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 12, 2022

Conversation

Martchus
Copy link
Contributor

  • Using a separate transaction per job is likely good enough and has the advantage that other components see changes faster and there's less potential for deadlocks
  • Related issue: https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/121768

* Using a separate transaction per job is likely good enough and has the
  advantage that other components see changes faster and there's less
  potential for deadlocks
* Related issue: https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/121768
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 12, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #4955 (42d427b) into master (ab43bbd) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4955      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.17%   98.17%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         379      379              
  Lines       35412    35410       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        34765    34763       -2     
  Misses        647      647              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
lib/OpenQA/Scheduler/Model/Jobs.pm 97.33% <100.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

@mergify mergify bot merged commit 0c3433f into os-autoinst:master Dec 12, 2022
@Martchus Martchus deleted the split-txn branch December 12, 2022 14:51
@kraih
Copy link
Member

kraih commented Dec 19, 2022

Good idea. We should try to keep all transaction scopes as small as possible.

This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants