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

Hardlink resident layers during detach ancestor #10729

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 11, 2025

Conversation

arpad-m
Copy link
Member

@arpad-m arpad-m commented Feb 7, 2025

After a detach ancestor operation, we don't want to on-demand download layers that are already resident. This has shown to impede performance, sometimes quite a lot (50 seconds: #8828 (comment))

Fixes #8828.

@arpad-m arpad-m requested a review from a team as a code owner February 7, 2025 21:28
@arpad-m arpad-m requested review from arssher and problame February 7, 2025 21:28
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 7, 2025

7425 tests run: 7045 passed, 0 failed, 380 skipped (full report)


Flaky tests (3)

Postgres 17

Code coverage* (full report)

  • functions: 33.2% (8586 of 25850 functions)
  • lines: 49.1% (72308 of 147327 lines)

* collected from Rust tests only


The comment gets automatically updated with the latest test results
18456d3 at 2025-02-11T16:13:04.967Z :recycle:

Copy link
Contributor

@problame problame left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Preexiting nit: I think adoptee is the wrong term? The adoptee is the detached Timeline, hence it is _adopting the layer, hence adopter would be more appropriate.
Please flag if my understanding is incorrect, but let's leave the naming as is to keep this patch on point.

@arpad-m
Copy link
Member Author

arpad-m commented Feb 11, 2025

Preexiting nit: I think adoptee is the wrong term? The adoptee is the detached Timeline, hence it is _adopting the layer, hence adopter would be more appropriate.

yeah you are right, this was confusing to me as well.

@arpad-m arpad-m requested a review from problame February 11, 2025 11:46
@arpad-m arpad-m added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 11, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit f7b2293 Feb 11, 2025
86 checks passed
@arpad-m arpad-m deleted the arpad/hard_link_detach_ancestor branch February 11, 2025 17:06
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.

timeline_ancestor_detach: hardlinking where possible
2 participants