-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 284
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
base: feature/perf
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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]>
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.
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.
I would like to see this merged because UEFI takes up a lot of data in records. |
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'd also like to see this change 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.
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.
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).
I agree with @contificate. Making existing fields |
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.