refactor(core): UUID suffix instead of Unix timestamp #72
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I'm attempting parallel writes to the same target BigQuery table from multiple source taps (using Meltano). When a Unix timestamp is used as a suffix for the intermediate table, there is a significant chance that concurrent processes produce the same name for it (i.e., if they happen to call
time.time()
within the same second). This results in a scenario in which the first process to finish loading records drops the table, and a latter process raises an exception - e.g.:google.api_core.exceptions.BadRequest: 400 Not found: Table project:dataset.table_name__1699498892 was not found
.I'm not sure if there was another motivation behind using the Unix timestamp as a suffix, but if it was purely for the sake of uniqueness, I'd like to recommend using a UUID v4 suffix instead, which is effectively guaranteed to be unique across concurrent processes.