This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 14, 2024. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
Update postgres version checking to handle verbose version strings #7097
Merged
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
Generate changelog in
|
jeremyk-91
approved these changes
Apr 23, 2024
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.
Yep, makes sense - thanks for the contribution! 👍
|
||
private PostgresVersionCheck() {} | ||
|
||
static Optional<String> extractValidPostgresVersion(String rawVersionString) { |
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.
ah I see this is used in the test, we probably want the @VisibleForTesting
annotation?
|
||
@Test | ||
public void shouldLogErrorOnEmpty() { | ||
verifyUnparseableVersionError(""); |
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.
Thanks for the additional tests!
mdaudali
approved these changes
May 30, 2024
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
General
Before this PR:
Postgres version parsing failed for versions like
14.11 (Ubuntu 14.11-1.pgdg20.04+1)
, which led to verbose error logging unnecessarily.After this PR:
Postgres version parsing now handles verbose strings like the above, and a new message warns when version parsing fails completely.
Priority:
P2 - logging fix.
Concerns / possible downsides (what feedback would you like?):
Pattern is relatively opinionated about verbose version string shapes.
Is documentation needed?:
No
Compatibility
Does this PR create any API breaks (e.g. at the Java or HTTP layers) - if so, do we have compatibility?:
No
Does this PR change the persisted format of any data - if so, do we have forward and backward compatibility?:
No
The code in this PR may be part of a blue-green deploy. Can upgrades from previous versions safely coexist? (Consider restarts of blue or green nodes.):
Yes
Does this PR rely on statements being true about other products at a deployment - if so, do we have correct product dependencies on these products (or other ways of verifying that these statements are true)?:
No
Does this PR need a schema migration?
No
Testing and Correctness
What, if any, assumptions are made about the current state of the world? If they change over time, how will we find out?:
Assumptions made about the shape of postgres version output. If that changes over time we will see logging about unparseable versions.
What was existing testing like? What have you done to improve it?:
Existing testing was fine, added several additional cases.
If this PR contains complex concurrent or asynchronous code, is it correct? The onus is on the PR writer to demonstrate this.:
N/A
If this PR involves acquiring locks or other shared resources, how do we ensure that these are always released?:
N/A
Execution
How would I tell this PR works in production? (Metrics, logs, etc.):
Logging will indicate the parsed version and when the version failed to parse.
Has the safety of all log arguments been decided correctly?:
Yes
Will this change significantly affect our spending on metrics or logs?:
No
How would I tell that this PR does not work in production? (monitors, etc.):
Logging will indicate the failed version parse.
If this PR does not work as expected, how do I fix that state? Would rollback be straightforward?:
Rollback.
If the above plan is more complex than “recall and rollback”, please tag the support PoC here (if it is the end of the week, tag both the current and next PoC):
N/A
Scale
Would this PR be expected to pose a risk at scale? Think of the shopping product at our largest stack.:
No
Would this PR be expected to perform a large number of database calls, and/or expensive database calls (e.g., row range scans, concurrent CAS)?:
No - unchanged from prior state (single call to load version on postgres).
Would this PR ever, with time and scale, become the wrong thing to do - and if so, how would we know that we need to do something differently?:
Only if the postgres version format changes, and we'll be notified with logging.
Development Process
Where should we start reviewing?:
The unit test.
If this PR is in excess of 500 lines excluding versions lock-files, why does it not make sense to split it?:
N/A
Please tag any other people who should be aware of this PR:
@jeremyk-91
@sverma30
@raiju