-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11.7k
[Indexer] Support 2-day retention for objects_history table #19318
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
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
3 Skipped Deployments
|
0220849
to
41643aa
Compare
41643aa
to
f7d5b68
Compare
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.
:customization:
lazy_static! { | ||
static ref DEFAULT_EPOCHS_OVERRIDES: HashMap<&'static str, u64> = { | ||
let mut m = HashMap::new(); | ||
m.insert("objects_history", 2); | ||
m | ||
}; | ||
} | ||
|
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.
use LazyCell instead of lazy_static
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.
Could we avoid the global and instead pass this config info through?
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.
We do that too in this PR. Here we provide a few defaults overrides.
I think if we could change our config strategy to a file instead of command line args, it would be a lot easier to move this fully to configs.
Is this still safe to do without a watermark table to track the available ranges for each table group? |
Good question. @wlmyng If we have a different pruning retention for objects_history table than other tables, would that break anything? |
f7d5b68
to
1066c19
Compare
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.
changes look good, let's make sure that the alternative table(s) are ready on tnt and mnt when this change is rolled out.
1066c19
to
3939548
Compare
3939548
to
d506e7d
Compare
Description
Add support to override epoch retention for individual tables. This can be passed from the command line.
It only supports partitioned table today. For non-partitioned tables it will take some wiring to make it work and not urgent. We need this today mainly to prune the objects_history table more aggressively.
Test plan
CI
Release notes
Check each box that your changes affect. If none of the boxes relate to your changes, release notes aren't required.
For each box you select, include information after the relevant heading that describes the impact of your changes that a user might notice and any actions they must take to implement updates.