Re: The need for LocalTaskJob
Alex (cc'd) brought this up to me about this a while ago too, and I agreed
with him. It is definitely something we should do, I remember there were
some things that were a bit tricky about removing the intermediate process
and would be a bit of work to fix (something about the tasks needing to
heartbeat the parent process maybe?).
TLDR: No blockers from me, just might be a bit of work to implement.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 9:15 AM Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Max, Dan et al,
> Currently, when a scheduled task runs this happens in three steps:
> 1. Worker
> 2. LocalTaskJob
> 3. Raw task instance
> It uses (by default) 5 (!) different processes:
> 1. Worker
> 2. Bash + Airflow
> 3. Bash + Airflow
> I think we can merge worker and LocalTaskJob as the latter seems exist
> only to track a particular task. This can be done within the worker without
> side effects. Next to thatI think we can limit the amount of (airflow)
> processes to 2 if we remove the bash dependency. I don’t see any reason to
> depend on bash.
> Can you guys shed some light on what the thoughts were around those
> choices? Am I missing anything on why they should exist?
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad