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

Give the vdb verification exactly once semantics for vrpq #781

Merged

Conversation

chinhtranvan
Copy link
Collaborator

@chinhtranvan chinhtranvan commented Apr 30, 2024

The VerticaRestorePointsQuery reconciler will keep retrying the query when a previous query has failed. We should check if QueryComplete is present instead of checking if QueryComplete is true to ensure the verification of exactly-once semantics.
The VRep reconciler change will be opened in another PR in vnext branch

@spilchen
Copy link
Collaborator

The e2e failures are likely something we inherit from the latest server image. I see them in my PR too.

@chinhtranvan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

chinhtranvan commented Apr 30, 2024

The e2e failures are likely something we inherit from the latest server image. I see them in my PR too.

Yeah, I noticed that the log rotation on my server (e2e-leg-6) failed with the latest server image. I will open a pull request (PR) to fix it.

@spilchen
Copy link
Collaborator

I am following up with a server issue. In the mean time, to get the e2e tests clean, I rolled back the latest image to point to the day before. So, lets see if that resolves things.

@chinhtranvan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

chinhtranvan commented Apr 30, 2024

I am following up with a server issue. In the mean time, to get the e2e tests clean, I rolled back the latest image to point to the day before. So, lets see if that resolves things.

The image from the day before worked well; I noticed that it ran successfully for all e2e tests in your PR.

@spilchen
Copy link
Collaborator

I am following up with a server issue. In the mean time, to get the e2e tests clean, I rolled back the latest image to point to the day before. So, lets see if that resolves things.

The image from the day before worked well; I noticed that it ran successfully for all e2e tests in your PR.

Yes, I resubmitted the failed runs after reverting the latest images.

@chinhtranvan chinhtranvan merged commit 94ebf38 into main Apr 30, 2024
30 checks passed
@chinhtranvan chinhtranvan deleted the chinh/give-the-vdb-verification-exactly-once-semantics-vrpq branch April 30, 2024 20:32
chinhtranvan added a commit that referenced this pull request May 1, 2024
To follow up on #781, we will verify the presence of QueryReady instead
of checking if QueryReady is true. This ensures the verification of
exactly-once semantics for vrep.
cchen-vertica pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024
To follow up on #781, we will verify the presence of QueryReady instead
of checking if QueryReady is true. This ensures the verification of
exactly-once semantics for vrep.
cchen-vertica pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024
To follow up on #781, we will verify the presence of QueryReady instead
of checking if QueryReady is true. This ensures the verification of
exactly-once semantics for vrep.
cchen-vertica pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
To follow up on #781, we will verify the presence of QueryReady instead
of checking if QueryReady is true. This ensures the verification of
exactly-once semantics for vrep.
cchen-vertica pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
To follow up on #781, we will verify the presence of QueryReady instead
of checking if QueryReady is true. This ensures the verification of
exactly-once semantics for vrep.
cchen-vertica pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
To follow up on #781, we will verify the presence of QueryReady instead
of checking if QueryReady is true. This ensures the verification of
exactly-once semantics for vrep.
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.

2 participants