We were incorrectly skipping the call to communicator_new_rel_create(),
which resulted in an error during index build, when the btree build code
tried to check the size of the newly-created relation.
Not sure how verbose we want this to be in production, but for now,
more is better.
This shows that many tests are failing with errors like these:
PG:2025-07-01 23:02:34.311 GMT [1456523] LOG: [COMMUNICATOR] send_process_get_rel_size_request: got error status: NotFound, message: "Read error", details: [], metadata: MetadataMap { headers: {"content-type": "application/grpc", "date": "Tue, 01 Jul 2025 23:02:34 GMT"} }, retrying
I haven't debugged why that is yet. Did the compute make a bogus request?
## Problem
We don't notify cplane about safekeeper membership change yet. Without
the notification the compute needs to know all the safekeepers on the
cluster to be able to speak to them. Change notifications will allow to
avoid it.
- Closes: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/12188
## Summary of changes
- Implement `notify_safekeepers` method in `ComputeHook`
- Notify cplane about safekeepers in `safekeeper_migrate` handler.
- Update the test to make sure notifications work.
## Out of scope
- There is `cplane_notified_generation` field in `timelines` table in
strocon's database. It's not needed now, so it's not updated in the PR.
Probably we can remove it.
- e2e tests to make sure it works with a production cplane
## Problem
The gRPC API does not provide LSN leases.
## Summary of changes
* Add LSN lease support to the gRPC API.
* Use gRPC LSN leases for static computes with `grpc://` connstrings.
* Move `PageserverProtocol` into the `compute_api::spec` module and
reuse it.
## Problem
Location config changes can currently result in changes to the shard
identity. Such changes will cause data corruption, as seen with #12217.
Resolves#12227.
Requires #12377.
## Summary of changes
Assert that the shard identity does not change on location config
updates and on (re)attach.
This is currently asserted with `critical!`, in case it misfires in
production. Later, we should reject such requests with an error and turn
this into a proper assertion.
Implicit mapping to an `anyhow::Error` when we do `?` is discouraged
because tooling to find those places isn't great.
As a drive-by, also make SplitImageLayerWriter::new infallible and sync.
I think we should also make ImageLayerWriter::new completely lazy,
then `BatchLayerWriter:new` infallible and async.
Reverts neondatabase/neon#11663 and
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/11265/
Step Security is not yet approved by Databricks team, in order to
prevent issues during Github org migration, I'll revert this PR to use
the previous action instead of Step Security maintained action.
## Problem
Similarly to #12217, the following endpoints may result in a stripe size
mismatch between the storage controller and Pageserver if an unsharded
tenant has a different stripe size set than the default. This can lead
to data corruption if the tenant is later manually split without
specifying an explicit stripe size, since the storage controller and
Pageserver will apply different defaults. This commonly happens with
tenants that were created before the default stripe size was changed
from 32k to 2k.
* `PUT /v1/tenant/config`
* `PATCH /v1/tenant/config`
These endpoints are no longer in regular production use (they were used
when cplane still managed Pageserver directly), but can still be called
manually or by tests.
## Summary of changes
Retain the current shard parameters when updating the location config in
`PUT | PATCH /v1/tenant/config`.
Also opportunistically derive `Copy` for `ShardParameters`.
## Problem
Some of the design decisions in PR #12256 were influenced by the
requirements of consistency tests. These decisions introduced
intermediate logic that is no longer needed and should be cleaned up.
## Summary of Changes
- Remove the `feature("testing")` flag related to
`kick_secondary_download`.
- Set the default value of `kick_secondary_download` back to false,
reflecting the intended production behavior.
Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Sarantsev <aleksandr.sarantsev@databricks.com>
There's a bug somewhere because this happens in python regression
tests. We need to hunt that down, but in any case, let's not get stuck
in an infinite loop if it happens.
