fix(topology): serialize enrichment table registry loads#25615
Open
pront wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Serialize access to the process-global
ENRICHMENT_TABLESregistry while topology builds or enrichment-table reloads move throughload/finish_load.This fixes an internal race for concurrent in-process topology builds/reloads. The normal daemon reload path already serializes reload signals through the topology controller, so this is primarily exposed by plain
cargo testand test harnesses that build topologies concurrently.Vector configuration
N/A
How did you test this PR?
make fmtcargo test -p vector topology::test::reload --no-default-features --features sources-prometheus,sinks-prometheus,sources-internal_metrics,sources-splunk_hec,enrichment-tables-memorycargo testmake check-clippyChange Type
Is this a breaking change?
Does this PR include user facing changes?
no-changeloglabel to this PR.References
Notes
None.