-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 653
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
Feature Request: Add Error Status Field for Diskless Syncs #878
Comments
I mentioned here valkey-io/valkey-doc#158 wanting to add these fields, and now seems like a good time to do it. @valkey-io/core-team please take a look at the doc PR link, and see if we want to add the diskless related fields. |
I just want to confirm with you:
|
|
For case 2 and 4, I think it makes sense to add repl-diskless-sync-status. |
I think both cases can happend, as long as the situations will cause diskless-sync fail, we should set the repl-diskless-sync-status. |
@valkey-io/core-team please take a look and check if this needs to be fit into 8.0 Here are the fields we have now and their definitions, we can see we are mixing disk-based RDB and diskless RDB in some fields, and
|
The problem/use-case that the feature addresses
Currently, Valkey has a
lastbgsave_status
field that tracks the status of disk-based bgsave. However, there is no equivalent field or status indicator for diskless sync operations. This lack of visibility into diskless sync errors makes it difficult to monitor and troubleshoot issues related to these operations.Description of the feature
Introduce a new field or status indicator, tentatively named
lastbgsave_diskless_status
, to track the status of diskless sync operations. This field should be updated with an appropriate error code or message whenever an error occurs during the diskless sync process.Alternatives you've considered
Logging errors: Instead of introducing a new field, errors during diskless sync operations could be logged. However, this approach would require parsing logs to identify and monitor errors, which can be less efficient than having a dedicated status field.
Reusing
lastbgsave_status
: Another alternative would be to reuse the existinglastbgsave_status
field for both disk-based and diskless sync operations. However, this could lead to confusion and make it harder to distinguish between different types of errors. It also may make tests which already uses the metric to do wrong assertions.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: