Skip to content

Share the existing background job connection with (only) some jobs #5918

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 18, 2023

Conversation

jtgeibel
Copy link
Member

This should resolve the deadlock issues seen in the initial implementation in #5837. The first commit reverts the revert done in #5909. The second commit then adds the connection pool back to the state available within Job::perform(), though now the pool is an Option<_> and only available in production. If test coverage of these background jobs is ever desired it could potentially be implemented with the existing infrastructure used in unhealthy_database tests.

…er-changes"

This reverts commit 838ac1d, reversing
changes made to a732c1f.

This reintroduces changes that were originally landed in rust-lang#5837 and
reverted in rust-lang#5909.
Some jobs are long running and should not run within an existing
transaction.
Copy link
Member

@Turbo87 Turbo87 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM on first glance 👍

@Turbo87 Turbo87 added C-internal 🔧 Category: Nonessential work that would make the codebase more consistent or clear A-backend ⚙️ labels Jan 12, 2023
@jtgeibel
Copy link
Member Author

I'm not expecting any issues, but I have time to monitor things for a while so I'm going to merge and deploy.

@jtgeibel jtgeibel merged commit feb4959 into rust-lang:master Jan 18, 2023
@jtgeibel jtgeibel deleted the bg-worker-round-2 branch January 18, 2023 02:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-backend ⚙️ C-internal 🔧 Category: Nonessential work that would make the codebase more consistent or clear
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants