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

chore: Refactor storage interface for rf1 #13415

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 5, 2024

Conversation

cyriltovena
Copy link
Contributor

@cyriltovena cyriltovena commented Jul 4, 2024

What this PR does / why we need it:

This refactor the RF1 storage to use io.Reader as much as possible to avoid creating a temporary buffer.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist

  • Reviewed the CONTRIBUTING.md guide (required)
  • Documentation added
  • Tests updated
  • Title matches the required conventional commits format, see here
    • Note that Promtail is considered to be feature complete, and future development for logs collection will be in Grafana Alloy. As such, feat PRs are unlikely to be accepted unless a case can be made for the feature actually being a bug fix to existing behavior.
  • Changes that require user attention or interaction to upgrade are documented in docs/sources/setup/upgrade/_index.md
  • For Helm chart changes bump the Helm chart version in production/helm/loki/Chart.yaml and update production/helm/loki/CHANGELOG.md and production/helm/loki/README.md. Example PR
  • If the change is deprecating or removing a configuration option, update the deprecated-config.yaml and deleted-config.yaml files respectively in the tools/deprecated-config-checker directory. Example PR

@pull-request-size pull-request-size bot added size/XL and removed size/L labels Jul 5, 2024
@cyriltovena cyriltovena marked this pull request as ready for review July 5, 2024 08:11
@cyriltovena cyriltovena requested a review from a team as a code owner July 5, 2024 08:11
Copy link
Contributor

@benclive benclive left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice - using io.Reader & removing PutWal is a big improvement imo. Couple of minor comments but otherwise LGTM

return store, nil
}

func (m *Multi) GetStoreFor(ts model.Time) (client.ObjectClient, error) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for implementing this - I wasn't sure how it was meant to work with the existing store implementation.

if rs, ok := r.(io.ReadSeeker); ok {
return rs, nil
}
data, err := io.ReadAll(r)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we think about a sync.Pool here? Presumably it allocates a new buffer every time
Should be fine for now, we can return to it if it's an issue.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think the caller should really pass a ReadSeeker, this is a best effort.

Copy link
Contributor

@vlad-diachenko vlad-diachenko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

Comment on lines +64 to +66
if 0 <= j && j < len(m.stores) {
return m.stores[j].objectClient, nil
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: if the first schema is after the ts, sort.Search() returns 0 , after this we decrease it and it will be -1 that will fail this code.
but it's possible only in case the user misconfigured his schema_config.

@cyriltovena cyriltovena merged commit 0076bbd into grafana:main Jul 5, 2024
61 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants