StevenK | Somebody should blow sampledata up | 00:06 |
---|---|---|
StevenK | wgrant: https://code.launchpad.net/~stevenk/launchpad/performant-getSourcesForDeletion/+merge/153704 | 01:18 |
wgrant | StevenK: Have you checked that my theory is correct? | 01:21 |
StevenK | It sounded plausible to me | 01:21 |
wgrant | A query to check that scheduleddeletiondate is set iff (published or has published (or unremoved? can't remember) binaries) would give me more confidence | 01:22 |
wgrant | I guess if you check scheduleddeletiondate on the binaries it might work | 01:22 |
wgrant | Though it's not going to corrupt data if my assumption is incorrect, we should still try to verify it against existing data. | 01:25 |
StevenK | wgrant: Query is http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/5624173/, results http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/5624172/ | 01:36 |
wgrant | StevenK: https://pastebin.canonical.com/86983/ | 01:46 |
StevenK | wgrant: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/5624196/ | 01:48 |
wgrant | I know | 01:48 |
StevenK | Right | 01:48 |
wgrant | So it looks like it might be right, but maybe not | 01:48 |
wgrant | We should probably investigate those cases to see what might be up | 01:48 |
wgrant | They may indicate publisher bugs | 01:48 |
StevenK | Which cases? | 01:48 |
wgrant | Those 20 | 01:49 |
wgrant | It's also possible that a publisher run will fix those | 01:49 |
wgrant | Because this invariant is only eventually consistent | 01:49 |
StevenK | Well, let's see on prod | 01:49 |
StevenK | Since qas is a bit odd | 01:49 |
wgrant | Oh | 01:49 |
wgrant | You also check that the binary is actually published | 01:50 |
wgrant | Rather than condemned | 01:50 |
StevenK | That was what the old method did | 01:50 |
wgrant | And I only changed the archive in one part of the query | 01:50 |
StevenK | Haha | 01:50 |
StevenK | Oh | 01:50 |
StevenK | Right, so the results are fairly useless | 01:51 |
wgrant | That also explains why it ran so quickly | 01:52 |
StevenK | If you're running it on sour, I'll kill mine | 01:52 |
wgrant | I am | 01:52 |
StevenK | Mine has been killed | 01:53 |
StevenK | wgrant: That query with 32 for both archives is 0 rows | 02:06 |
StevenK | wgrant: What did that query return for PRIMARY? | 03:14 |
wgrant | StevenK: 20000 rows | 03:15 |
StevenK | Bloody hell | 03:16 |
StevenK | I don't think Archive:+delete-packages works for PRIMARY anyway? | 03:16 |
wgrant | Sure | 03:16 |
wgrant | But the primary archive and PPAs use the same domination code. | 03:16 |
wgrant | Any problem in the primary archive can apply to another archive. | 03:17 |
wgrant | So it is a useful pathological test case. | 03:17 |
StevenK | Right, so do you want to split up the work, or what is your plan? | 03:17 |
wgrant | Hmm, overrides, maybe | 03:20 |
* wgrant gives up | 03:20 | |
StevenK | Overrides will indeed fuck that up | 03:20 |
StevenK | Thinking about it | 03:20 |
StevenK | No overrides for PPAs | 03:20 |
StevenK | wgrant: So I think it's plausible that overrides won't be doing that query any favours. | 03:32 |
wgrant | Running it over the first 10k PPAs gives about 500 results | 03:34 |
wgrant | Possibly explainable by copies | 03:35 |
wgrant | I guess it'll do | 03:35 |
StevenK | wgrant: Wait, how do copies explain it? | 03:36 |
wgrant | StevenK: Undeletions | 03:36 |
wgrant | If I delete something, let it be removed, then revive it | 03:36 |
StevenK | Oh, the necromancy style of copies | 03:37 |
wgrant | The old pubs may have been removed from disk, despite there now being live binaries | 03:37 |
StevenK | wgrant: If it will do, can I get a review, then? | 03:51 |
wgrant | StevenK: r=me with a comment | 03:55 |
StevenK | wgrant: Your comment assumes I understand the reasons :-P | 03:56 |
wgrant | StevenK: We only expose deletion of sources in the UI | 03:57 |
wgrant | But you may need to delete a superseded source's binaries | 03:57 |
wgrant | So we want to show a source if can itself be deleted, or if it has binaries that can be. | 03:57 |
wgrant | Due to the GPL and sanity, we don't condemn sources until their binaries are gone. | 03:58 |
StevenK | Right | 03:58 |
StevenK | Yeah, I just recalled GPL compliance | 03:58 |
StevenK | + # We will return sources that can be deleted, or deleted sources that | 03:59 |
StevenK | + # still have published binaries. We can use scheduleddeletiondate | 03:59 |
StevenK | + # rather than linking through BPB, BPR and BPPH since we don't condemn | 04:00 |
StevenK | + # sources until their binaries are all gone due to GPL compliance. | 04:00 |
StevenK | wgrant: ^ | 04:00 |
wgrant | Sounds reasonable. | 04:00 |
StevenK | wgrant: How goes your TranslationMessage denorm? | 04:04 |
wgrant | StevenK: Given that it's a fairly large table, I'm looking for other things I can do at the same time to avoid rewriting it more than once | 04:12 |
StevenK | wgrant: It requires a full table rewrite? | 04:13 |
wgrant | StevenK: Denorming a column does, yes. | 04:20 |
wgrant | We need to populate it. | 04:20 |
wgrant | Resolving the message sharing performance debacle is probably a much more difficult matter, but we'll see | 04:24 |
wgrant | I'm reasonably convinced that the feature was primarily designed to make me cry years later. | 04:24 |
StevenK | Haha | 04:25 |
StevenK | Given TM is a 6GiB table, we should only rewrite it once, yes. | 04:25 |
wgrant | A statement count of 328 doesn't seem too bad until you realise that the page only shows 10 items and times out before it's done half the queries. | 04:34 |
StevenK | Hah | 04:36 |
StevenK | wgrant: I wonder if we want tmpreaper for ackee and loganberry to combat bug 881255 ? | 04:36 |
_mup_ | Bug #881255: bzr-limbo-?????? and gpg-?????? in /tmp is not being cleaned up and taking up a lot of space <canonical-losa-lp> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/881255 > | 04:36 |
wgrant | StevenK: Combat? Conceal. | 04:37 |
StevenK | Conceal works too | 04:38 |
StevenK | wgrant: Hmmmm | 05:15 |
wgrant | The failure? | 05:15 |
StevenK | wgrant: Deleting publications does not set scheduleddeletiondate, so the sources turn up in the view again | 05:15 |
wgrant | StevenK: Bah, yes. | 05:16 |
wgrant | Damn | 05:16 |
wgrant | Although that's probably not necessarily a huge problem | 05:16 |
wgrant | Except for tests. | 05:16 |
StevenK | It will get set by the publisher? | 05:16 |
wgrant | It'll show the status correctly. | 05:16 |
wgrant | Yes | 05:16 |
wgrant | It's done during domination. | 05:17 |
StevenK | It will show the status correctly, but there is probably nothing stopping users from selecting a DELETED publication and trying to do so again and then getting a OOPS | 05:18 |
wgrant | It shouldn't oops | 05:18 |
StevenK | Hm, indeed | 05:19 |
wgrant | Recall that we show them when they have published binaries exactly so that an already deleted source can be deleted again | 05:19 |
StevenK | I thought I saw an assert for !DELETED | 05:20 |
StevenK | But I can't see one | 05:20 |
StevenK | wgrant: I think the easiest thing for the tests is to set scheduleddeletiondate | 05:20 |
wgrant | Depends on what the test wants to achieve | 05:21 |
wgrant | But probably, yes. | 05:21 |
StevenK | archive-views.txt is checking a double POST | 05:21 |
StevenK | We can probably just destroy the view.has_sources_for_display check | 05:22 |
=== almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | ||
=== al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | ||
=== wedgwood_away is now known as wedgwood | ||
=== matsubara is now known as matsubara-lunch | ||
=== deryck is now known as deryck[lunch] | ||
=== Ursinha_ is now known as Ursinha | ||
=== matsubara-lunch is now known as matsubara | ||
=== deryck[lunch] is now known as deryck | ||
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk | ||
=== BradCrittenden is now known as bac | ||
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha | ||
=== Ursinha_ is now known as Ursinha | ||
=== wedgwood is now known as wedgwood_away |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!