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

CP-49147: Reduce size of the pool record (uefi_certificates) #6182

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: feature/perf
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

edwintorok
Copy link
Contributor

This field is very big and part of every pool.get_all_records() call (done by SM), which is currently >64KiB in size.

TODO: the Changed field needs to match the (future!) tag that this will receive. Hence draft.

This field is very big and part of every pool.get_all_records() call
(done by SM), which is currently >64KiB in size.

TODO: the Changed field needs to match the (future!) tag that this will receive.

Signed-off-by: Edwin Török <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@lindig lindig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The idea is that very few clients will need the certificate and can use a new API call to obtain it. The existing field is replaced by a digest.

This seems fine with me as long as we control the relevant clients.

@lindig
Copy link
Contributor

lindig commented Jan 9, 2025

I would like to see this merged because UEFI takes up a lot of data in records.

Copy link
Contributor

@contificate contificate left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd also like to see this change merged.

Copy link
Contributor

@contificate contificate left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Upon a second look over this PR, I am concerned about the change to "internal only". My understanding is that internal only fields affect what is seen in snapshots.

image

The API records manipulated internally comprise every field, but my understanding is that DB actions (generated) for get_record etc. exclude those fields (since they're typically things like related session references).

We should change the meaning of the field, but not its visibility to API users (which I fear this PR may have done accidentally).

@robhoes
Copy link
Member

robhoes commented Jan 22, 2025

I agree with @contificate. Making existing fields internal_only:true is similar to removing the field from the API and is backwards incompatible. It may also break rolling updates.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants