Re: Meta DB transaction isolation level

We found at times some read queries lock up the task instance table, piling up connections and task heartbeat transactions, which takes longer to recover. In READ COMMITTED, such long running and full table locks should be avoided in many cases. Basically we are trying to improve performance and

Re: [PROPOSE] Introduce and encourage pre-commit hooks framework to Airflow developer workflow

+1 (non-binding), I love that. I use a git pre-commit bash script but I think the framework looks even better. :) -feluelle Original Message On Jul 2, 2019, 19:48, Maxime Beauchemin wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Jul 1, [2019](tel:2019) at 11:20 PM Kaxil Naik > wrote: > >> +1 We ha

Re: [VOTE] Labelling scheme for the upcoming official docker images of Airflow

+1 (non-binding) from my side. I really like the naming. The only thing I can think of would be to change python to py to have a slightly shorter name. -feluelle Original Message On Jul 2, 2019, 08:34, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Just to remind - the vote is up till Thursday 7am CES

Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

Definitly +1 for removing this whatever this is supposed to mean :D -feluelle Original Message On Jul 3, 2019, 20:03, Driesprong, Fokko wrote: > I think this is very awkward, +1 on removing > > Op wo 3 jul. [2019](tel:2019) om 19:57 schreef Kamil Breguła > >: > >> This is very

Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

I think this is very awkward, +1 on removing Op wo 3 jul. 2019 om 19:57 schreef Kamil Breguła : > This is very confusing. > +1 > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 7:20 PM Christian Lellmann > wrote: > > > Me neither. Also from me +1 (non-binding) on removal. > > > > Tao Feng schrieb am Mi., 3. Juli 2019

Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

+1 To me the preferred method is to use the context manager (`with DAG(...) as dag:`). We should make sure all examples align with that method if that's not the case already. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:57 AM Kamil Breguła wrote: > This is very confusing. > +1 > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 7:20 PM C

Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

This is very confusing. +1 On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 7:20 PM Christian Lellmann wrote: > Me neither. Also from me +1 (non-binding) on removal. > > Tao Feng schrieb am Mi., 3. Juli 2019, 18:38: > > > I am not aware of this feature either. And +1 on removing it. > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:36 A

Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

Me neither. Also from me +1 (non-binding) on removal. Tao Feng schrieb am Mi., 3. Juli 2019, 18:38: > I am not aware of this feature either. And +1 on removing it. > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:36 AM Kaxil Naik wrote: > > > I am definitely sure that 99% of users, including me, didn't knew this >

Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

I am not aware of this feature either. And +1 on removing it. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:36 AM Kaxil Naik wrote: > I am definitely sure that 99% of users, including me, didn't knew this > feature ever existed 😀. > > It is not a feature worth having tbh. So I am in favor of removing it. > > Regards

Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

I am definitely sure that 99% of users, including me, didn't knew this feature ever existed 😀. It is not a feature worth having tbh. So I am in favor of removing it. Regards, Kaxil On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 18:37 James Meickle wrote: > I didn't even know this was a feature. Seems like it's unnecess

Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

I didn't even know this was a feature. Seems like it's unnecessarily ambiguous, since you can't tell at a glance whether a variable is a dag or a task. Definitely in favor of removal. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:49 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote: > I'm just suggesting removing the `dag >> task` -- `tas

Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

I'm just suggesting removing the `dag >> task` -- `task >> task` will stay > On 3 Jul 2019, at 13:46, Philippe Gagnon wrote: > > Just to be clear, are you suggesting removing all bitshift operator > overloads from airflow operators (sorry - the dual meaning of operator here > is confusing), or j

Re: [2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

Just to be clear, are you suggesting removing all bitshift operator overloads from airflow operators (sorry - the dual meaning of operator here is confusing), or just the assignment to DAG behavior? If it's the former, I find it to be a particularly expressive way to define dependencies between ta

[2.0 spring cleaning] Remove `dag >> task`?

It is possible to assign a task to the dag using the bitshift operators, however it doesn't pick up default_args when done this way : ``` dag = DAG('my_dag', default_args=default_args) dummy = DummyOperator(task_id='dummy') dag >> dummy ``` We

Status of Travis queuing

Hello everyone, I wanted to provide some status of Travis queuing problems we experience recently. The queues in Travis are reaching fairly ridiculous level. Other Apache projects are experiencing it as well. There is an open discussion about it in the build apache list https://lists.apache.org/t