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

Fix for removing scheduler slowness due to sync call #10839

Closed

Conversation

riteshvaryani
Copy link
Member

@riteshvaryani riteshvaryani commented Jan 28, 2022

This change will run taskupdate in a separate thread and will not synchronize the call causing scheduler slowness.
Fixes bug introduced by 613bd2f

This fixes slowness in trino task update in the scheduler that is seen from version 360

@riteshvaryani
Copy link
Member Author

@hashhar
Copy link
Member

hashhar commented Jan 28, 2022

@cla-bot check

@cla-bot
Copy link

cla-bot bot commented Jan 28, 2022

Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community. We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have you on file. In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the signed CLA to cla@trino.io. For more information, see https://github.com/trinodb/cla.

@cla-bot
Copy link

cla-bot bot commented Jan 28, 2022

The cla-bot has been summoned, and re-checked this pull request!

@riteshvaryani
Copy link
Member Author

@hashhar I have submitted my cla via email today- hoping its approved soon

@findepi findepi requested a review from sopel39 January 28, 2022 09:43
@findepi
Copy link
Member

findepi commented Jan 28, 2022

How does this relate to @sopel39 's #10836?

@sopel39
Copy link
Member

sopel39 commented Jan 28, 2022

Tests failed due to #6220

@sopel39
Copy link
Member

sopel39 commented Jan 28, 2022

@riteshvaryani this one can be merged without CLA since it's merely a tiny fix

@sopel39
Copy link
Member

sopel39 commented Jan 28, 2022

merged in #10841

@sopel39 sopel39 closed this Jan 28, 2022
@sopel39
Copy link
Member

sopel39 commented Jan 28, 2022

Thanks @riteshvaryani !. I've preserved your authorship

@sopel39 sopel39 mentioned this pull request Jan 28, 2022
@riteshvaryani
Copy link
Member Author

thank you @sopel39

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants