First of all I want to highlight that this approach I guess worked
well until Dynamic Task Mappings introduced.
> The main reason for adding that cleanup was -- if you don't do that, you
will have many rows, similar to the TaskInstance table
The problem itself is not how big your table/indexes, r
>
> Potentially it is a good idea to deprecate this option and recommend for
> users to set it to 0? WDYT? Maybe someone has already tried or investigated
> this?
The main reason for adding that cleanup was -- if you don't do that, you
will have many rows, similar to the TaskInstance table. And t
Hi everybody. Howard Yoo here.
I authored the AIP-49, and just to give you all some updates, I haven't
been successful in making much progress on this proposal, due to the fact
that my original intention was to publish AIP-49 after my POC on open
telemetry, and wanted to hand it over to whomever w
Greetings!
During migrating our ORM syntax to compatible with SQLAlchemy 2.0 I
probably found skeletons in the closet.
Let's start from the beginning, initially I got this warning
airflow/models/renderedtifields.py:245 RemovedIn20Warning('ORDER BY columns
added implicitly due to DISTINCT is depr
