store: implement non-block reading for Get and BatchGet under the large transaction protocol #13599
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ge transaction protocol
|
/run-all-tests |
|
Integration test fails, we also need to implement this in TiKV? @MyonKeminta @youjiali1995 |
coocood
reviewed
Nov 20, 2019
| tk.MustQuery("select * from t where id in (1)").Check(testkit.Rows("1 1")) | ||
|
|
||
| // Cover PointGet. | ||
| tk.MustQuery("select * from t where id = 1").Check(testkit.Rows("1 1")) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this query use MaxTS?
Then we need also to cover PointGet with real TS.
|
/integration-common-test |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #13599 +/- ##
===========================================
Coverage 80.2676% 80.2676%
===========================================
Files 475 475
Lines 117898 117898
===========================================
Hits 94634 94634
Misses 15846 15846
Partials 7418 7418 |
|
LGTM |
lysu
reviewed
Nov 20, 2019
| @@ -285,10 +298,17 @@ func (s *tikvSnapshot) get(bo *Backoffer, k kv.Key) ([]byte, error) { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| failpoint.Inject("snapshot-get-cache-fail", func(_ failpoint.Value) { | |||
| panic("cache miss") | |||
| if bo.ctx.Value("TestSnapshotCache") != nil { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe using exp like 1*return(true)->return(false) like this
Line 601 in 2aa571b
failpoint.Value == true at here is more gofail idiom~
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the concurrent test environment, that mock panic may affect other tests.
bo.ctx.Value("TestSnapshotCache") is used to address that problem. @lysu
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or we can pass a TS and panic on equal TS.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In failpoint.Inject it doesn't know which TS @coocood
lysu
approved these changes
Nov 20, 2019
|
@MyonKeminta PTAL |
|
/merge |
sre-bot
added
the
status/can-merge
|
/run-all-tests |
XiaTianliang
pushed a commit
to XiaTianliang/tidb
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2019
…ge transaction protocol (pingcap#13599)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What problem does this PR solve?
Large transactions should not block the read operation.
We've handle the coprocessor reading in #11986, and this commit continues with snapshot reading.
What is changed and how it works?
Implement non-block read for
snapshot.Get()andsnapshot.BatchGet()function.When those operations meet lock,
ResolveLockand retry.The
SendReqCtxoperation would not block in the retry as we pass theresolvedLocks.Check List
Tests
Code changes