czw., 3 lip 2025, 10:14 użytkownik Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com>
napisał:
> Thanks for that angle, Jarek.
>
> Lets say DB lookup has higher precedence than that of say ENV backend.
> Wouldn't this be shooting ourselves in the foot by compromising the
> performance here? DB lookup
> will be more expensive than DB.
>
>
Oh absolutely. I think if we have this possibility of managing order those
kind of scenarios alshould be explained in the docs so that users do not
shoot themselves in a foot
Also following my mail about multi team. I started to think recently -
looking at some other OSS software thetwe sometimes take too much
responsibility for our users and the snuffer be cause we have to defend out
opinionated choices when there are use cases that outlet choices do not
enable.
This is the reason why we have so many 'options' and config values because
sometimes we do not want to make decisions for our users - but where we can
make it an option and configuration and clearly explain to o lut users (and
mostly I am talking about Deployment Manager role from our security model).
- it's their responsibility to read all the information we provide and
follow it when they make decisions on how to configure Airflow - knowing
the consequences. And we should be 'harsh' with them - in the sense that if
they did not read the docs and did not understand it - any time they ask
imus about something not working that is explained in the docs - we should
send them to the doc with 'Read The Friendly Manual' advice - simply
because this is the only job they have. And we should not do the job for
them.
Similarly having operations like that allow our managed service providers
to make their opinionated choices and make some configuration options
possible, some selected for their users in the context of the service
managed. But again - that's their responsibility to manage and understand
what are the options and what they mean. Same as individual deployment
managers - they can make their own decisions - and if it does not cost us a
lot we should make it possible for them to make those choices (and take
responsibility for their choices)
With great powers (of choice) you also have great responsibilities (of
consequences of your choices) - and as long we are aware of those
consequences and communicate it to deployment managers - it's on their
shoulders to make the choices and bear the consequences.
J.
There could also be a few more side effects that we will have to fully
> uncover and come up
> with a detailed plan to allow this to be configurable.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Amogh Desai
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 6:43 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > I think this is a good idea - but as Ash mentioned, it has to be executed
> > well with a lot of bells and whistles, so that users will not shoot
> > themselves in their foot. For example we had recently discussions on the
> > new UI whether/how to explain the users that their connections in UI and
> > API **only** show the DB connections (for good reasons) - and it is
> already
> > difficult to explain to the users, now - this change will also make it
> > behave differently (for example - currently when you edit connection via
> UI
> > it might **not** get into effect if you have same connection defined in
> the
> > secret/env var. But if you make DB first - this changes and there are few
> > edge-cases where it might have some unexpected effect.
> >
> > But there is one inevitable benefit of this approach that I like - the
> > ability of turning airflow DB into an effective "shield" for secret
> usage.
> > The big drawback of the current "sequence" is that airflow generates a
> LOT
> > of queries to Secrets' manager, even if your connection is defined in the
> > DB - because it will query secrets first. So currently it is not possible
> > to say "for this, highly frequently used connection I want to keep it in
> DB
> > to save on the secret's manager queries - both performance and cost wise
> -
> > because defining connection in the DB does not limit the number of secret
> > manager's queries. So in a number of scenarios, being able to revert it
> and
> > query DB first might be very good for cost and network optimisation.
> >
> > I think if we describe it (as Ash wrote) well in the docs and explain
> those
> > scenarios and also clearly communicate it in the UI if Airflow (we need
> to
> > likely have some way of explaining the user what is their currently
> > configured sequence and what they should expect to happen if they
> > remove/add connection) - then I see it as a really useful feature.
> >
> > J.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 2:54 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > At a high level I’m good with allowing this to be fully configurable,
> as
> > > long as we document the possible warts (“Doctor, it hurts when I do
> this”
> > > “well don’t do that then!” etc) — though as Amogh mentioned it is
> > slightly
> > > complicated by the distinction between API Server/Scheduler and the
> > > execution time on the worker.
> > >
> > > (I haven’t looked at the specific implementation yet)
> > >
> > > -ash
> > >
> > > > On 2 Jul 2025, at 11:56, Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Anton,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for kicking off this discussion. I’d love to understand your
> > > > motivations a bit more on this front.
> > > > From your PR, I am seeing that you are just not allowing addition of
> > > > multiple custom backends
> > > > but also changing the *default_backend* order. I am a bit torn on
> that
> > > > part.
> > > >
> > > > The current design intentionally places the metadata DB backend at
> the
> > > > lowest precedence in the order,
> > > > since it’s meant to serve as the ultimate fallback source of truth.
> Any
> > > > additional configured
> > > > backends are prioritized higher than it by design.
> > > >
> > > > With your changes, we now allow configurations like:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * @conf_vars({("secrets", "backends_order"):
> > > > "metastore,environment_variable,unsupported"}) def
> > > > test_backends_order_unsupported(self): with
> > > > pytest.raises(AirflowConfigException):
> > > ensure_secrets_loaded()*
> > > >
> > > > I don’t fully understand the motivation behind supporting this level
> of
> > > > override, especially since it
> > > > could allow unsupported or unintended configurations. Additionally,
> > with
> > > > Airflow 3.0+, we already support
> > > > a multi layered secret backend resolution capability with the
> > > introduction
> > > > of secrets backend for workers.
> > > > Order goes as:
> > > >
> > > > *secrets backend on worker directly (optional) > env vars on worker
> > *
> > > > *reach out to api server [secrets backend defined here (optional) >
> env
> > > > vars on api server > metadata DB].*
> > > >
> > > > You will have to consider this angle too.
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, a more practical and realistic use case would be to
> have
> > > the
> > > > ability to define multiple custom backends
> > > > both on worker or the API server.
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to hearing more from you.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > > Amogh Desai
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:59 PM Anton Nitochkin <
> > ant.nitoch...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hello,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd like to discuss a new option that can be added via this PR:
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/45931.
> > > >>
> > > >> Recently, I asked developers in Slack for their thoughts on the new
> > > >> variable [secrets]backend_order. Long story short: this option will
> > > >> introduce the ability to configure the backend order and control it
> > > using
> > > >> this variable. The default value will remain the same as in the
> > current
> > > >> version, so for users who don't need it, things will stay as they
> are
> > > now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jarek Potiuk advised starting a conversation and discussing the PR
> to
> > > reach
> > > >> a consensus with the community.
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you please share your thoughts on the option and its
> > implementation?
> > > >>
> > > >> Anton Nitochkin
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
