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

[persist] Remove some usage logic that depends on the writer id #30815

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2024

Conversation

bkirwi
Copy link
Contributor

@bkirwi bkirwi commented Dec 12, 2024

Motivation

Since we never write blobs with the writer id prefix anymore, all blobs with that prefix are either present in the state or leaked. Here we simplify some checks and update some tests to use the simpler writer key comparison.

(We're thinking about changing the writer key format yet again; nice to clean up some logic related to the old format before possibly adding another one!)

Checklist

  • This PR has adequate test coverage / QA involvement has been duly considered. (trigger-ci for additional test/nightly runs)
  • This PR has an associated up-to-date design doc, is a design doc (template), or is sufficiently small to not require a design.
  • If this PR evolves an existing $T ⇔ Proto$T mapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with a T-proto label.
  • If this PR will require changes to cloud orchestration or tests, there is a companion cloud PR to account for those changes that is tagged with the release-blocker label (example).
  • If this PR includes major user-facing behavior changes, I have pinged the relevant PM to schedule a changelog post.

@bkirwi bkirwi marked this pull request as ready for review December 13, 2024 15:39
@bkirwi bkirwi requested a review from a team as a code owner December 13, 2024 15:39
Copy link
Member

@ParkMyCar ParkMyCar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@bkirwi bkirwi merged commit fe65187 into MaterializeInc:main Dec 16, 2024
79 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.

2 participants