Thanks for the responses so far. I think we could export publications along with the repo version by exporting any publication that points to a repo version.
My concern with exporting repositories is that users will probably get a bunch of content they don't care about if they want to export a single repo version. That said, if users do want to export entire repos, we could add this feature later I think? David On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:30 AM Justin Sherrill <jsher...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 2/14/20 1:09 PM, David Davis wrote: > > Grant and I met today to discuss importers and exporters[0] and we'd like > some feedback before we proceed with the design. To sum up this feature > briefly: users can export a repository version from one Pulp instance and > import it to another. > > # Master/Detail vs Core > > So one fundamental question is whether we should use a Master/Detail > approach or just have core control the flow but call out to plugins to get > export formats. > > To give some background: we currently define Exporters (ie > FileSystemExporter) in core as Master models. Plugins extend this model > which allows them to configure or customize the Exporter. This was > necessary because some plugins need to export Publications (along with > repository metadata) while other plugins who don't have Publications or > metadata export RepositoryVersions. > > The other option is to have core handle the workflow. The user would call > a core endpoint and provide a RepositoryVersion. This would work because > for importing/exporting, you wouldn't ever use Publications because > metadata won't be used for importing back into Pulp. If needed, core could > provide a way for plugin writers to write custom handlers/exporters for > content types. > > If we go with the second option, the question then becomes whether we > should divorce the concept of Exporters and import/export. Or do we also > switch Exporters from Master/Detail to core only? > > # Foreign Keys > > Content can be distributed across multiple tables (eg UpdateRecord has > UpdateCollection, etc). In our export, we could either use primary keys > (UUIDs) or natural keys to relate records. The former assumes that UUIDs > are unique across Pulp instances. The safer but more complex alternative is > to use natural keys. This would involve storing a set of fields on a record > that would be used to identify a related record. > > # Incremental Exports > > There are two big pieces of data contained in an export: the dataset of > Content from the database and the artifact files. An incremental export > cuts down on the size of an export by only exporting the differences. > However, when performing an incremental export, we could still export the > complete dataset instead of just a set of differences > (additions/removals/updates). This approach would be simpler and it would > allow us to ensure that the new repo version matches the exported repo > version exactly. It would however increase the export size but not by much > I think--probably some number of megabytes at most. > > If its simper, i would go with that. Saving even ~100-200 MB isn't that > big of a deal IMO. the biggest savings is in the RPM content. > > > > [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6134 > > David > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing > listPulp-dev@redhat.comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
