Skip to content

Add retry logic for CreatePipeline with backoff#6067

Merged
6543 merged 1 commit intowoodpecker-ci:mainfrom
myselfghost:f-pipeline-create-retry
Feb 5, 2026
Merged

Add retry logic for CreatePipeline with backoff#6067
6543 merged 1 commit intowoodpecker-ci:mainfrom
myselfghost:f-pipeline-create-retry

Conversation

@myselfghost
Copy link
Contributor

@myselfghost myselfghost commented Feb 5, 2026

closes #3884

@qwerty287
Copy link
Contributor

This doesn't fix the actual issue, I don't think this is a good way to go.

@myselfghost
Copy link
Contributor Author

This doesn't fix the actual issue, I don't think this is a good way to go.

The reality is that this issue has been shelved for too long. We should take measures to prevent it from happening, so as to ensure stable system usage.

@qwerty287
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, but there was a solution using a lock already. That would be better I think (that pr was closed at some point, don't know why. I was not involved there)

@myselfghost
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes, but there was a solution using a lock already. That would be better I think (that pr was closed at some point, don't know why. I was not involved there)

Although this solution is not the most elegant approach, it can solve the problem and allow the system to operate normally.

@6543 6543 added bug Something isn't working server labels Feb 5, 2026
Copy link
Member

@6543 6543 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would considder it an hotfix that is selfe contained ... so okish for me

@6543
Copy link
Member

6543 commented Feb 5, 2026

Yes, but there was a solution using a lock already. That would be better I think (that pr was closed at some point, don't know why. I was not involved there)

@qwerty287 I tryed a locking mechanism and currently it has still edgecases where some sql dialects dont work propperly or poorly and so I would say this hotfix is good enoth for now and self contained.

so reverting it and using an lock mechanism later is still easy to do...

#5534 (comment) -> not sure when i do dedicate time to it ...

@codecov

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@6543 6543 merged commit 1af1ef5 into woodpecker-ci:main Feb 5, 2026
9 checks passed
@woodpecker-bot woodpecker-bot mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2026
1 task
6543 added a commit to 6543-forks/woodpecker that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bug Something isn't working server

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Likely concurrency issue pq: 'duplicate key value violates unique constraint \"UQE_pipelines_s\"'

3 participants