Skip to content
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.

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

Fix PRS from being blocked because of misbehaving clients #15339

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Feb 28, 2024

Conversation

GuptaManan100
Copy link
Member

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 commented Feb 23, 2024

Description

This PR fixes the problem described in #14760. If a client stops reading messages from a stream query, we can't really prevent vtgates from continuing to be blocked.
What we can do is unblock vttablets from getting stuck at demote primary calls if shutdown grace period has been specified.

The order of operations in vttablets are as follows when we call DemotePrimary -

  1. We change the wanted state of vttablet, which prevents new queries from being accepted by the vttablet.
  2. Next, we kill all the OLTP queries.
  3. We wait for requests to be empty and kill all the OLAP queries after a grace period has passed (configurable and not necessary)

In this PR, we are reworking this flow and making it so that we don't wait for the requests to be empty if we have killed all the queries against MySQL. This will unblock DemotePrimary and it is safe to do, because MySQL is guaranteed to be not running any queries.

This PR is a rework of #14761 with additional tests and refactoring to make the code more readable.

The default for the flag shutdown_grace_period has also been changed. The flag was introduced first in #2301 and has defaulted to 0 always. Changing the default allows Vitess clusters that start with default values to not block PRS on client errors.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Feb 23, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Feb 23, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v20.0.0 milestone Feb 23, 2024
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Feb 23, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 23, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 65.42%. Comparing base (696fe0e) to head (9c4a881).
Report is 63 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #15339      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.41%   65.42%   -2.00%     
==========================================
  Files        1560     1562       +2     
  Lines      192752   193660     +908     
==========================================
- Hits       129952   126701    -3251     
- Misses      62800    66959    +4159     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

overall looks good. Just unsure about setting the shutdown grace period value to a low default.

@deepthi deepthi added the release notes (needs details) This PR needs to be listed in the release notes in a dedicated section (deprecation notice, etc...) label Feb 27, 2024
Copy link
Member

@deepthi deepthi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Release notes need editing. Rest LGTM

changelog/20.0/20.0.0/summary.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
changelog/20.0/20.0.0/summary.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 removed the release notes (needs details) This PR needs to be listed in the release notes in a dedicated section (deprecation notice, etc...) label Feb 28, 2024
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 merged commit 059e50d into vitessio:main Feb 28, 2024
102 of 103 checks passed
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 deleted the misbehaving-client-prs-stuck branch February 28, 2024 06:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Cluster management Component: Query Serving Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: Demote Primary stuck
3 participants