GoogleCloudPlatform / GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-sql-proxy-operator

AuthProxyWorkload status grows without pruning for Pod selectors

Ouverte
#773 0 commentaires 2 réactions 0 personnes assignées Voir sur GitHub
Langage dominant
Go
Étoiles
120
Forks
18
Métriques de merge des PR
Aucune PR mergée en 30 j

Description

## Summary

`AuthProxyWorkload` status appears to grow without bound when `spec.workloadSelector.kind: Pod` matches short-lived pods with unique names. The controller replaces an existing status entry only when `(name, namespace, kind, version)` matches; otherwise it appends a new entry. I could not find pruning of status entries for pods that no longer exist.

For high-churn workloads such as workflow/batch pods, deleted pod names therefore remain in `status.WorkloadStatus` permanently. Over time the APW object can become large enough that status updates fail with Kubernetes/etcd request-size errors, leaving reconcile status stale and preventing spec changes from being reflected in status.

## Observed impact

A Pod-selector APW matching ephemeral workflow pods accumulated thousands of stale pod entries and grew to roughly megabyte-scale status. Reconcile attempts then failed with errors of the form:

```text
etcdserver: request is too large
trying to send message larger than max (... vs. 2097152)
```

Clearing `status.WorkloadStatus` allowed reconcile to succeed again, but deleting completed pods alone did not remove the stale status entries, so the object would grow again with future pod churn.

## Expected behavior

The controller should bound APW status growth for `kind: Pod` selectors, for example by pruning status entries that no longer correspond to currently matching live workloads, compacting status for Pod selectors, or documenting/guarding against using Pod selectors for high-churn pods.

## Notes

This is most visible for `kind: Pod` selectors because pod names are often unique and short lived. The same status model is less likely to grow unbounded for stable controller objects such as Deployments or StatefulSets.

I checked releases through v1.7.10 and did not find a change that appears to address this behavior.

Guide de contribution

Ouvrir le guide de contribution

Évaluation

Cette issue n'a pas encore été évaluée.

Recevez les nouvelles issues par e-mail

Un résumé court des issues GitHub adaptées aux débutants.