bolkedebruin commented on PR #28333: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/28333#issuecomment-1352991701
@hugochinchilla I understand that you don't want to take on the scope of what I proposed, but I'd like your change to be compatible and future proof. Now a new field is added to the database which would need to be removed / migrated again in the future for example. Can this be more generic so that a migration isn't needed? I'm no sure if I share your concern with respect of the the scheduler starving. While performance wise their might be a difference between a Python filter vs a sql filter I don't see how the scheduler would starve. Another approach could be that Rules should be returning SQLAlchemy filters, however they would be less flexible. So, the idea is not to stand in the way of the change, but neither having to fully re-implement what you have created if there is already a path to the future. Some technical debt is acceptable, but preferably in code rather than in db for example. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
