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.
