destination-s3: don't reuse names of existing objects #45143
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
|
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. Join @stephane-airbyte and the rest of your teammates on |
stephane-airbyte
force-pushed
the
stephane/09-04-destination-s3_don_t_reuse_names_of_existing_objects
branch
5 times, most recently
from
97d6945 to
1d1843c
Compare
octavia-squidington-iii
added
area/connectors
stephane-airbyte
force-pushed
the
stephane/09-04-destination-s3_don_t_reuse_names_of_existing_objects
branch
2 times, most recently
from
640fbf4 to
0e56f8d
Compare
gisripa
reviewed
Sep 5, 2024
| objectNameByPrefix.computeIfAbsent( | ||
| objectPath, | ||
| ) { | ||
| var objectList: Set<String> = setOf() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can probably use this method here right ?
stephane-airbyte
force-pushed
the
stephane/09-04-destination-s3_don_t_reuse_names_of_existing_objects
branch
from
0e56f8d to
f812f4f
Compare
|
/publish-java-cdk
|
stephane-airbyte
force-pushed
the
stephane/09-04-destination-s3_don_t_reuse_names_of_existing_objects
branch
from
f812f4f to
00c93c1
Compare
stephane-airbyte
deleted the
stephane/09-04-destination-s3_don_t_reuse_names_of_existing_objects
branch
johnny-schmidt
approved these changes
Sep 5, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense:
- when writing a new file
- try to get a partId for the prefix
- start at 0
- first time for the prefix: build a map of prefix -> { all existing full names with prefix }
- while there's a conflict: increment and try again
- (no need to store the object you just made, because all subsequent calls should just increment any time there's a confict)
- try to get a partId for the prefix
So:
Sync 1: write(0, 1, 2)
Sync 2: write(3, 4, 5, 6) delete(0, 1, 2)
Sync 3: write(0, 1, 2, 7, 8)
etc
1 task
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Instead of counting the number of files and starting creating file based on that counter, we create files starting at 0 and avoid overriding files that were already present.
The problem was that in case of an overwrite sync, the 1st sync would create files
1, 2, 3. Sync 2 would notice there's 3 files and would create files4, 5 , 6and delete1, 2, 3at the end of the sync. Sync3 and after would see there's 3 files, would overwrite4, 5, 6and delete them because they were here before the sync started, leaving us with no files.fixes #6417