Change Details

(The latest deployment of DiscussionTools permalinks backend to group1 wikis T315353#8392662 has resulted in some new errors, although a lot less numerous this time. It really is a gift that keeps on giving.) There are a few occurrences of "Duplicate entry 'XXX-YYY' for key 'itr_itemid_id_revision_id'" (where "XXX" and "YYY" are different numbers). https://logstash.wikimedia.org/goto/fc6ea240e98b381db12b9d275915e001 {F35778269} It looks like the revisions are being processed simultaneously by multiple jobs? (as Ladsgroup was guessing in T322701#8382329) I don't know if we can dig into that, but if that's the case, this should be harmless from our perspective – we should avoid logging errors about it when it happens, though…

(The latest deployment of DiscussionTools permalinks backend to group1 wikis T315353#8392662 has resulted in some new errors, although a lot less numerous this time. It really is a gift that keeps on giving.) There are a few occurrences of "Duplicate entry 'XXX-YYY' for key 'itr_itemid_id_revision_id'" (where "XXX" and "YYY" are different numbers). https://logstash.wikimedia.org/goto/fc6ea240e98b381db12b9d275915e001 {F35778269} It looks like the revisions are being processed simultaneously by multiple jobs? (as Ladsgroup was guessing in T322701#8382329) I don't know if we can dig into that, but if that's the case, this should be harmless from our perspective – we should avoid logging errors about it when it happens, though… (This is distinct from {T323079})

(The latest deployment of DiscussionTools permalinks backend to group1 wikis T315353#8392662 has resulted in some new errors, although a lot less numerous this time. It really is a gift that keeps on giving.) There are a few occurrences of "Duplicate entry 'XXX-YYY' for key 'itr_itemid_id_revision_id'" (where "XXX" and "YYY" are different numbers). https://logstash.wikimedia.org/goto/fc6ea240e98b381db12b9d275915e001 {F35778269} It looks like the revisions are being processed simultaneously by multiple jobs? (as Ladsgroup was guessing in T322701#8382329) I don't know if we can dig into that, but if that's the case, this should be harmless from our perspective – we should avoid logging errors about it when it happens, though… (This is distinct from {T323079})