o-nikolas commented on issue #41891:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/41891#issuecomment-2321948408

   > I guess a discussion and proposal for that should happen - do you want to 
open it ? I guess we have some arguments and evidences already that we can use
   
   I'm happy to open it, but I was hoping to keep the new feature experimental 
until at least 2.11. So that folks using the new multiple executor 
configuration can find bugs and we can fix them to ensure it's working well and 
is stable before removing experimental. We're kind of stuck in the middle as of 
now. Do you think we should do it sooner and stabilize the new multiple 
executor config as we go?
   
   > I am not even sure if that change (@dstandish ?) is generally compatible 
with previous versions of executors (on the phone now) - I see that there were 
some 'potentially internal' changes but they really impacted the executor 
interface and the way it is used
   
   The compat is a good point I'll leave @dstandish to comment. Executors from 
older versions of provider will definitely not have the new `_task_event_logs` 
property so when run with the new Airflow you'll see the above exception. 
Nothing will fail critically since the attempt to read that property is within 
a try/catch, but it will be incredibly spammy as it will try that over and over 
and log an exception each time it looks like.
   
    > strange that some other executors were modified in this change in some 
providers but the 'old hybrid's weren't so we likely have a bit complex 
incompatibility scenarios here.
    
    The executors that were modified were the ones that were using the old task 
context logger, they were updated to use this new logger. Not all executors 
used the logger which is why only some were updated.


-- 
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]

Reply via email to