-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
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
backupccl: add deprecation notice for BACKUP TO
and RESTORE FROM
without subdir
#78165
Merged
+121
−68
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Before the 22.1 release, I think we'll need to add a docs page that provides step by step guidance on restoring backups with the new restore syntax that were originally created with the old backup syntax. That page should be linked to this warning.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like the idea of a section about this, but I think it can either be inline where this link points to today as a notice/warning, or be linked out from there. cc: @kathancox
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fwiw, It seems like inline would be a good idea. But, I also think expanding the deprecation notice and recording this in the docs — especially if workarounds are needed if a backup was taken with
BACKUP TO
, but would need to be restored with the newRESTORE
syntax is important. When the docs issue comes through for this with the release notes, I'll prioritize into 22.1 work.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't know if we need workarounds: recall RESTORE only supports restoring backups from the previous major version or newer, so if 22.1 deprecates
backup to
(but can still restore backups made with it, including by 21.2), then 22.2 can just drop support and we don't need to supply workarounds, since any 22.1-made backups, the oldest it should need to restore, should be in collections anyway.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@adityamaru do you know if there's a clean migration from old backups that use
INCREMENTAL FROM
to the newincremental_location
parameter? And how that interacts with locality aware backups? Aside from this, I think the user migration is pretty straightforward. Perhaps a data driven test in this PR could validate the different migration stories.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
perhaps then we should make the
BACKUP TO
warning even scarrier: "your backup will not be restorable in the next major release"There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But it is restorable right?
BACKUP TABLE foo TO 'nodelocal://1/bar'
can be restored usingRESTORE FROM 'bar' IN 'nodelocal://1/';
? Thex IN y
just appends the path toy/x
and looks for the manifest to restore.I agree that we should have some documentation helping customers in 22.2 restoring backups written in 22.1 using deprecated syntax, but thats docs issue that can be addressed once this is merged?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah, that happy path is restorable, but there may be other user backup file configurations that may not be (e.g. ones that use
INCREMENTAL FROM
or locality aware backups). But i'm not sure.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
technically yes, but I'd just as soon sidestep this whole mixing old and new and just say it isn't.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added a slightly sterner warning to the backup code, let me know what yall think.