The changes made for #2186 [0] was pulled from the 2.11.0 release yesterday, and we should talk about how to implement it for 2.12
>From what I can see there are 2 ways to move forward with #2186 *1.* We can fix the pulp worker db record cleanup so that pulp_celerybeat exits cleanly (aka put this back: [1]) and make new changes to clean up pulp_workers with a SIGTERM handler in a 2.11.z release. We can then re-revert the commit and put the feature back in 2.12 with little effort. The original reason #2186 was implemented using the db records was so we can support a clustered pulp installation. But this approach would make migration to 2.12 more difficult, since users now have to upgrade to the 2.11.z release first before going to 2.12 *2. *We can rethinking our approach to #2186 and perform the check against the process list Upgrade-wise implementing it this way is a lot easier for users, since they can do a straight upgrade to 2.12 without going through an intermediary release. The downside is that in clustered environments this would not catch every potential error. But #2186 is a best effort story, and if this is the best effort I am ok with it. Regardless of which option we go with I think we should get the pulp worker db cleanup in. We should also have a --ignore-running-worker flag [2] to prevent automated upgrade problems. [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2186 [1] https://github.com/werwty/pulp/commit/4f43a85dd568f4a0b50ae9b07bbec7138861e92b#diff-80e8b96df1f5da9a551bb6ff18dea352 [2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2469
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
