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.

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

Modify distributed transaction commit flow #16468

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jul 30, 2024
Merged

Modify distributed transaction commit flow #16468

merged 7 commits into from
Jul 30, 2024

Conversation

harshit-gangal
Copy link
Member

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal commented Jul 24, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Description

This PR updates the commit flow as per the new design doc on atomic distributed transactions.

  • Any failure before a commit decision rollback the transaction.
  • Any failure before conclude, records a warning and return an error.
  • The user can track the transaction state by issuing show warnings and then extracting transaction ID. Later can issue show transaction status for '<id>' to know the current state of it.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • 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

@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jul 24, 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 Jul 24, 2024
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal removed 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 Jul 24, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.0 milestone Jul 24, 2024
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal added Type: Feature Component: Query Serving and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work labels Jul 24, 2024
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 24, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 75.32468% with 19 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.63%. Comparing base (7f639d3) to head (6e22f8a).
Report is 14 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
go/vt/vtgate/tx_conn.go 77.02% 17 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/production.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16468      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.66%   68.63%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1550     1552       +2     
  Lines      199307   199544     +237     
==========================================
+ Hits       136846   136961     +115     
- Misses      62461    62583     +122

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

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal marked this pull request as ready for review July 25, 2024 17:18
GuptaManan100
GuptaManan100 approved these changes Jul 26, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Logic LGTM

go/vt/vtgate/debug_2pc.go
const DebugTwoPc = true

// checkTestFailure is used to simulate failures in 2PC flow for testing when DebugTwoPc is true.
func checkTestFailure(ctx context.Context, expectCaller string, target *querypb.Target) error {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why put this in this file? and then a corresponding function in the other file?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are multiple reasons

  1. This is an unused function in the production build.
  2. Anyone can end up using it if this implementation remains in production code.
  3. Simple no-op production code will avoid any incidental calls to it.

go/vt/vtgate/tx_conn.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@harshit-gangal
chore: error message
016db5d 
Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
systay
systay reviewed Jul 30, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/vt/vtgate/tx_conn.go
return err
}

return txc.tabletGateway.ConcludeTransaction(ctx, mmShard.Target, dtid)
// At this point, application can continue forward.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

for my own understanding - could we in theory do the clean up in a background thread and answer the user that their commit has been accepted?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In theory, yes, but it is better to call conclude now, than using goroutine or transaction resolver to conclude.

systay
systay reviewed Jul 30, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/vt/vtgate/tx_conn.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@harshit-gangal
addressed review comments
6e22f8a 
Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal merged commit 3d104d0 into vitessio:main Jul 30, 2024
129 checks passed
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal deleted the tx-2pc-flow branch July 30, 2024 11:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 approved these changes

@systay systay systay approved these changes

@frouioui frouioui Awaiting requested review from frouioui frouioui is a code owner

@mattlord mattlord Awaiting requested review from mattlord mattlord is a code owner

@deepthi deepthi Awaiting requested review from deepthi

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: Query Serving Type: Feature
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v21.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@harshit-gangal @systay @GuptaManan100