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

sql: missing predicates to start the job scheduler in secondary tenants #90383

Closed
knz opened this issue Oct 20, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #93639
Closed

sql: missing predicates to start the job scheduler in secondary tenants #90383

knz opened this issue Oct 20, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #93639
Assignees
Labels
A-jobs C-bug Code not up to spec/doc, specs & docs deemed correct. Solution expected to change code/behavior. T-jobs

Comments

@knz
Copy link
Contributor

knz commented Oct 20, 2022

Describe the problem

The job scheduler is an async, tenant-scoped SQL-level process that scans system.jobs periodically.

To avoid contention on the system table, we have a mechanism intended to only start the job scheduler on 1 node of the cluster.
(The ShouldRunScheduler on JobExecutionConfig)

Today, the mechanism only work on the system tenant.

It does not work on secondary tenants.

This means that any use of secondary tenants (starting with CC serverless, and will extend to UA clusters) will experience job contention just as when the mechanism didn't exist yet.

Expected behavior

We need to find a better condition that works for all tenants, not just the system tenant.

Epic: CRDB-14537

Jira issue: CRDB-20745

@knz knz added C-bug Code not up to spec/doc, specs & docs deemed correct. Solution expected to change code/behavior. A-jobs T-jobs labels Oct 20, 2022
@craig craig bot closed this as completed in b6667d9 Dec 19, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-jobs C-bug Code not up to spec/doc, specs & docs deemed correct. Solution expected to change code/behavior. T-jobs
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants