-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 316
Remove num_retries parameter from load_table_from_*() methods #1071
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
Comments
@tswast Those comments were added at least two years ago, and we haven't actually been issuing any deprecation warnings. Are the comments still valid? |
Looks like they were there even 4 years ago. googleapis/google-cloud-python#4136 Edit: even before that: googleapis/google-cloud-python#3555 Edit: I think we actually inherited it from GCS: googleapis/google-cloud-python#3378 Edit: This was the PR with original deprecation/removal: googleapis/google-cloud-python#3362 |
I imagine the intent was to deprecate it in favor of a Maybe in v3 we add the If we get that working, then I think in v3 we just start warning for |
Looks like the intent was to replace it with a https://googleapis.dev/python/google-resumable-media/latest/resumable_media/common.html?highlight=retrystrategy#google.resumable_media.common.RetryStrategy, actually? |
Looks like We might want to do something similar. Edit: See where this was added in googleapis/python-storage#447 |
That's quite possible. A retry strategy is much more expressive than a plain timeout value. I agree that issuing deprecation warnings first would be a more user-friendly approach. I wouldn't necessarily include this in the 3.0 release, though, maybe just the deprecation warning? IMHO there's more value in finalizing the first |
Agreed that it's a low priority and that we'd probably only include the deprecation warning + retry feature in v3. A stable v3 is definitely more important, and this could happen post-v3 release. |
Gonna mark this as a P3 priority based on the above conversation. |
This is still on the back burner. If we intend to do this, the first steps are:
|
I wonder if we still need to remove @tswast @chalmerlowe |
@chalmerlowe , @Linchin is correct. There are at least three types of retries that are relevant to load jobs:
I would be in favor of deprecating num_retries in favor of a new name that reflects the purpose of being specific to resumable media, but not removing it. I do recommend reaching out to the GCS team to see if they have plans for improving retry support in resumable media. I recall there was a project along those lines in 2020. |
Just re-read the whole thread and this comment appears to be the most relevant. I don't know if it makes sense to add a new parameter or reuse the same retry object for two different purposes. Would be good to sync with GCS in that regard. |
When dealing with missing timeout for resumable upload requests, I noticed several comments that the
num_retries
parameter is deprecated and is planned to be removed. If this is still the case, we can use the opportunity and remove it inv3
.Examples:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: