feat(taskbroker): Add drain mode#669
Draft
untitaker wants to merge 7 commits into
Draft
Conversation
Add a `drain: true` config flag that lets a broker start with zero consumable topics (and thus no consumers) and just flush whatever is already in its store out to workers, while upkeep keeps running. Used to move a topic off a broker by editing config: the old broker keeps draining its DB. ref STREAM-1042 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
ref STREAM-1042
Add a drain flag that tells taskbroker to not consume from anything, but instead just serve up its activationstore.
Postgres currently works with this because if there are no assigned partitions, it does infact drain. Sqlite has always work.
This will probably be useful for rollbacks and incident response, but I haven't thought too deeply about it. Maybe for later.
It naturally falls out of #668, all we change is that instead of allowing 1..n topics, we allow 0..n topics.