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

Update postgres version checking to handle verbose version strings #7097

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 30, 2024

Conversation

safreiberg
Copy link
Contributor

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

@changelog-app
Copy link

changelog-app bot commented Apr 18, 2024

Generate changelog in changelog/@unreleased

What do the change types mean?
  • feature: A new feature of the service.
  • improvement: An incremental improvement in the functionality or operation of the service.
  • fix: Remedies the incorrect behaviour of a component of the service in a backwards-compatible way.
  • break: Has the potential to break consumers of this service's API, inclusive of both Palantir services
    and external consumers of the service's API (e.g. customer-written software or integrations).
  • deprecation: Advertises the intention to remove service functionality without any change to the
    operation of the service itself.
  • manualTask: Requires the possibility of manual intervention (running a script, eyeballing configuration,
    performing database surgery, ...) at the time of upgrade for it to succeed.
  • migration: A fully automatic upgrade migration task with no engineer input required.

Note: only one type should be chosen.

How are new versions calculated?
  • ❗The break and manual task changelog types will result in a major release!
  • 🐛 The fix changelog type will result in a minor release in most cases, and a patch release version for patch branches. This behaviour is configurable in autorelease.
  • ✨ All others will result in a minor version release.

Type

  • Feature
  • Improvement
  • Fix
  • Break
  • Deprecation
  • Manual task
  • Migration

Description

Update postgres version checking to handle verbose version strings

Check the box to generate changelog(s)

  • Generate changelog entry

Copy link
Contributor

@jeremyk-91 jeremyk-91 left a 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) {
Copy link
Contributor

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("");
Copy link
Contributor

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!

@jeremyk-91 jeremyk-91 merged commit 530bbd9 into develop May 30, 2024
21 checks passed
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.

None yet

5 participants