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

Disable nonmaindb interface #7903

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

Disable nonmaindb interface #7903

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

eaydingol
Copy link
Contributor

DESCRIPTION: PR description that will go into the change log, up to 78 characters

@eaydingol eaydingol marked this pull request as draft February 18, 2025 13:18
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 18, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.39%. Comparing base (711aec8) to head (90dde46).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7903      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.70%   89.39%   -0.31%     
==========================================
  Files         283      283              
  Lines       60519    60513       -6     
  Branches     7544     7541       -3     
==========================================
- Hits        54286    54095     -191     
- Misses       4079     4243     +164     
- Partials     2154     2175      +21     

DROP FUNCTION pg_catalog.citus_unmark_object_distributed(oid, oid, int);
#include "udfs/citus_unmark_object_distributed/12.2-1.sql"
#include "udfs/commit_management_command_2pc/12.2-1.sql"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we also delete these files altogether, and not just remove the include line here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My goal is to remove only the interface with minimal changes. I kept the files because their C implementations are still present in the codebase.

As you suggested, we can also remove the SQL and test files altogether. This way, we wouldn't need the name change and the additional schedule (from other comments).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the alternative #7905

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am leaning towards the alternative, especially for the .sql files. We don't keep .sql files with a Citus version in their name that we don't use.

I still think the changes are minimal if we remove the .sql files and the relevant tests as well. Wondering if codecov would complain though.

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
test: failure_non_main_db_2pc
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this schedule runnable?
If not, maybe we don't need to introduce this schedule.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not actually, it includes the removed tests. "check_all_tests_are_run" complains without it.

@naisila
Copy link
Member

naisila commented Feb 18, 2025

I guess you have modified the .py files such that they are ignored, right?
That's fine with me, we can document all these details.

@eaydingol eaydingol closed this Feb 20, 2025
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