Updates storage components to edition 2024. We like to stay on the
latest edition if possible. There is no functional changes, however some
code changes had to be done to accommodate the edition's breaking
changes.
The PR has two commits:
* the first commit updates storage crates to edition 2024 and appeases
`cargo clippy` by changing code. i have accidentially ran the formatter
on some files that had other edits.
* the second commit performs a `cargo fmt`
I would recommend a closer review of the first commit and a less close
review of the second one (as it just runs `cargo fmt`).
part of https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/10918
## Problem
We want to do a more robust job of scheduling tenants into their home
AZ: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/8264.
Closes: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/8969
## Summary of changes
### Scope
This PR combines prioritizing AZ with a larger rework of how we do
optimisation. The rationale is that just bumping AZ in the order of
Score attributes is a very tiny change: the interesting part is lining
up all the optimisation logic to respect this properly, which means
rewriting it to use the same scores as the scheduler, rather than the
fragile hand-crafted logic that we had before. Separating these changes
out is possible, but would involve doing two rounds of test updates
instead of one.
### Scheduling optimisation
`TenantShard`'s `optimize_attachment` and `optimize_secondary` methods
now both use the scheduler to pick a new "favourite" location. Then
there is some refined logic for whether + how to migrate to it:
- To decide if a new location is sufficiently "better", we generate
scores using some projected ScheduleContexts that exclude the shard
under consideration, so that we avoid migrating from a node with
AffinityScore(2) to a node with AffinityScore(1), only to migrate back
later.
- Score types get a `for_optimization` method so that when we compare
scores, we will only do an optimisation if the scores differ by their
highest-ranking attributes, not just because one pageserver is lower in
utilization. Eventually we _will_ want a mode that does this, but doing
it here would make scheduling logic unstable and harder to test, and to
do this correctly one needs to know the size of the tenant that one is
migrating.
- When we find a new attached location that we would like to move to, we
will create a new secondary location there, even if we already had one
on some other node. This handles the case where we have a home AZ A, and
want to migrate the attachment between pageservers in that AZ while
retaining a secondary location in some other AZ as well.
- A unit test is added for
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/8969, which is implicitly
fixed by reworking optimisation to use the same scheduling scores as
scheduling.
## Problem
Pinning a tenant by setting Pause scheduling policy doesn't work because
drain/fill code moves the tenant around during deploys.
Closes: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9612
## Summary of changes
- In drain, only move a tenant if it is in Active or Essential mode
- In fill, only move a tenant if it is in Active mode.
The asymmetry is a bit annoying, but it faithfully respects the purposes
of the modes: Essential is meant to endeavor to keep the tenant
available, which means it needs to be drained but doesn't need to be
migrated during fills.
## Problem
Migrations of tenant shards with cold secondaries are holding up drains
in during production deployments.
## Summary of changes
If a secondary locations is lagging by more than 256MiB (configurable,
but that's the default), then skip cutting it over to the secondary as part of the node drain.
