Provide a deployment Docker image based on RedHat UBI #49643
Labels
A-build-system
C-cleanup
Tech debt, refactors, loose ends, etc. Solution not expected to significantly change behavior.
Comments
|
Hi @bobvawter, please add a C-ategory label to your issue. Check out the label system docs. While you're here, please consider adding an A- label to help keep our repository tidy. 🦉 Hoot! I am a Blathers, a bot for CockroachDB. My owner is otan. |
bobvawter
added
C-cleanup
|
See also comments from Ben in #49593 (comment) |
|
Not "also" - the redhat UBI image should replace the debian-based one; there's no reason to offer two. |
craig bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 30, 2020
54544: kvserver: add assertions for invariants around liveness records r=irfansharif a=irfansharif Now that we have #53842, we maintain the invariant that there always exists a liveness record for any given node. We can now simplify our handling of liveness records internally: where previously we had code to handle the possibility of empty liveness records (we created a new one on the fly), we can change them to assertions to verify that's no longer possible. When retrieving the liveness record from our in-memory cache, it's possible for us to not find anything due to gossip delays. Instead of simply giving up then, now we can read the records directly from KV (and update our caches while in the area). This PR introduces this mechanism through usage of `getLivenessRecordFromKV`. Finally, as a bonus, this PR also surfaces a better error when trying to decommission non-existent nodes. We're able to do this because now we can always assume that a missing liveness record, as seen in the decommission codepath, implies that the user is trying to decommission a non-existent node. --- We don't intend to backport this to 20.2 due to the hazard described in \#54216. We want this PR to bake on master and (possibly) trip up the assertions added above if we've missed anything. They're the only ones checking for the invariant we've introduced around liveness records. That invariant will be depended on for long running migrations, so better to shake things out early. Release note: None 54812: docker: Base the docker image on RedHat UBI r=bdarnell,DuskEagle a=jlinder Before: The docker image was based on Debian 9.12 slim. Why: This change will help on-prem customers from a security and compliance perspective. It also aligns with our publishing images into the RedHat Marketplace. Now: Published docker images are based on the RedHat UBI 8 base image. Fixes: #49643 Release note (backward-incompatible change): CockroachDB Docker images are now based on the RedHat ubi8/ubi base image instead of Debian 9.12 slim. This will help on-prem customers from a security and compliance perspective. Co-authored-by: irfan sharif <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: James H. Linder <[email protected]>
jlinder
added a commit
to jlinder/cockroach
that referenced
this issue
Oct 1, 2020
Before: The docker image was based on Debian 9.12 slim. Why: This change will help on-prem customers from a security and compliance perspective. It also aligns with our publishing images into the RedHat Marketplace. Now: Published docker images are based on the RedHat UBI 8 base image. Fixes: cockroachdb#49643 Release note (backward-incompatible change): CockroachDB Docker images are now based on the RedHat ubi8/ubi base image instead of Debian 9.12 slim. This will help on-prem customers from a security and compliance perspective.
jayshrivastava
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 8, 2020
Before: The docker image was based on Debian 9.12 slim. Why: This change will help on-prem customers from a security and compliance perspective. It also aligns with our publishing images into the RedHat Marketplace. Now: Published docker images are based on the RedHat UBI 8 base image. Fixes: #49643 Release note (backward-incompatible change): CockroachDB Docker images are now based on the RedHat ubi8/ubi base image instead of Debian 9.12 slim. This will help on-prem customers from a security and compliance perspective.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
This is a follow-on to #41390. Right now, we ship a Debian-based image. It would be helpful for some operators to also supply a UBI-based docker image to DockerHub.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: