Skip to content

KEP-5673: add Graceful Deletion support for Custom Resources #5674

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

KEP-5673: add Graceful Deletion support for Custom Resources #5674

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+848 −0

Conversation

@dasionov
Copy link

  • One-line PR description:
    Add support for graceful deletion of Custom Resources by honoring --grace-period and setting metadata.deletionGracePeriodSeconds.

@dasionov
keps: add Graceful Deletion for Custom Resources kep
c6355aa 
This KEP proposes adding support for graceful deletion to Custom Resources (CRs)
by honoring the `--grace-period` flag (and `DeleteOptions.GracePeriodSeconds`)
during deletion operations. Currently, when users delete a Custom Resource with
a specified grace period, the value is ignored, leading to unexpected behavior
for controllers and operators that rely on finalizers and graceful shutdown logic.

This enhancement will ensure that when a Custom Resource is deleted with a grace
period, the `metadata.deletionGracePeriodSeconds` field is properly set, allowing
finalizers to observe this value and implement appropriate graceful shutdown
behavior.

This KEP proposes implementing this as stable behavior without a feature gate,
as the change is purely additive, backward compatible, and poses minimal risk.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Sionov <dsionov@redhat.com>
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. label Oct 29, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Welcome @dasionov!

It looks like this is your first PR to kubernetes/enhancements 🎉. Please refer to our pull request process documentation to help your PR have a smooth ride to approval.

You will be prompted by a bot to use commands during the review process. Do not be afraid to follow the prompts! It is okay to experiment. Here is the bot commands documentation.

You can also check if kubernetes/enhancements has its own contribution guidelines.

You may want to refer to our testing guide if you run into trouble with your tests not passing.

If you are having difficulty getting your pull request seen, please follow the recommended escalation practices. Also, for tips and tricks in the contribution process you may want to read the Kubernetes contributor cheat sheet. We want to make sure your contribution gets all the attention it needs!

Thank you, and welcome to Kubernetes. 😃

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. label Oct 29, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @dasionov. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a github.com member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the kind/kep Categorizes KEP tracking issues and PRs modifying the KEP directory label Oct 29, 2025
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: dasionov
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign deads2k for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added sig/api-machinery Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG API Machinery. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Oct 29, 2025
lmktfy
lmktfy reviewed Oct 30, 2025
View reviewed changes
keps/sig-api-machinery/5673-custom-resource-graceful-deletion/README.md
- Potential for confusion about when grace periods apply (only with finalizers)

## Alternatives

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could we achieve the same aim without any in-tree code? If so, I recommend listing that as one of the alternatives.

lmktfy
lmktfy reviewed Oct 30, 2025
View reviewed changes
keps/sig-api-machinery/5673-custom-resource-graceful-deletion/README.md

**Decision**: Rejected. Grace periods should only apply when there's work to do
(i.e., finalizers present), consistent with Pod behavior.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How I'd implement grace period for custom resources? A CEL expression that maps a requested grace period to a decision:

  • nope, no grace period
  • the actual grace period (eg: clamped to 60 second minimum)

Does that seem feasible? The expression would be part of the CustomResourceDefinition API.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@deads2k deads2k Awaiting requested review from deads2k

@fedebongio fedebongio Awaiting requested review from fedebongio

1 more reviewer

@lmktfy lmktfy lmktfy left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. kind/kep Categorizes KEP tracking issues and PRs modifying the KEP directory needs-ok-to-test Indicates a PR that requires an org member to verify it is safe to test. sig/api-machinery Categorizes an issue or PR as relevant to SIG API Machinery. size/XL Denotes a PR that changes 500-999 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@dasionov @k8s-ci-robot @lmktfy