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

release-23.2: backupccl: replace UDT IDs within routine bodies and views #116841

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 3, 2024

Conversation

blathers-crl[bot]
Copy link

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot commented Dec 20, 2023

Backport 1/1 commits from #116656 on behalf of @DrewKimball.

/cc @cockroachdb/release


During a database RESTORE, it is necessary to replace descriptor IDs
from the old database with those from the new. Previously, we forgot
to do this rewrite for UDT IDs in routine bodies and views. This would
prevent using a database RESTORE with a user-defined function, stored
procedure, or view, that referenced a user-defined type. This patch
adds the needed rewrite logic and expands existing tests.

Fixes #116653

Release note (bug fix): Fixed a bug that prevented database RESTORE when
the database contained a view or routine that referenced a user-defined
type in the body string. For views, this bug was introduced in v20.2, when
UDTs were introduced. For routines, this bug was introduced in v22.2, when
UDFs were introduced.


Release justification: bug fix for broken functions after restore

During a database RESTORE, it is necessary to replace descriptor IDs
from the old database with those from the new. Previously, we forgot
to do this rewrite for UDT IDs in routine bodies and views. This would
prevent using a database RESTORE with a user-defined function, stored
procedure, or view, that referenced a user-defined type. This patch
adds the needed rewrite logic and expands existing tests.

Fixes #116653

Release note (bug fix): Fixed a bug that prevented database RESTORE when
the database contained a view or routine that referenced a user-defined
type in the body string. For views, this bug was introduced in v20.2, when
UDTs were introduced. For routines, this bug was introduced in v22.2, when
UDFs were introduced.
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested review from a team as code owners December 20, 2023 02:37
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot force-pushed the blathers/backport-release-23.2-116656 branch from 24d8a4e to 7164ca9 Compare December 20, 2023 02:37
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot removed the request for review from a team December 20, 2023 02:37
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added the blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. label Dec 20, 2023
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested a review from msbutler December 20, 2023 02:37
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added the O-robot Originated from a bot. label Dec 20, 2023
Copy link
Author

blathers-crl bot commented Dec 20, 2023

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

  • Backports should only be created for serious
    issues
    or test-only changes.
  • Backports should not break backwards-compatibility.
  • Backports should change as little code as possible.
  • Backports should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
  • Backports should not add new functionality (except as defined
    here).
  • Backports must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.
  • All backports must be reviewed by the owning areas TL and one additional
    TL. For more information as to how that review should be conducted, please consult the backport
    policy
    .
If your backport adds new functionality, please ensure that the following additional criteria are satisfied:
  • There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
  • The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
  • New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters. State changes must be further protected such that nodes running old binaries will not be negatively impacted by the new state (with a mixed version test added).
  • The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.
  • Your backport must be accompanied by a post to the appropriate Slack
    channel (#db-backports-point-releases or #db-backports-XX-X-release) for awareness and discussion.

Also, please add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this
backport.

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added the backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches label Dec 20, 2023
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

@DrewKimball DrewKimball requested review from mgartner, rafiss and a team and removed request for a team and msbutler December 20, 2023 22:10
Copy link
Collaborator

@mgartner mgartner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:lgtm:

Reviewed 6 of 6 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @rafiss)

@DrewKimball
Copy link
Collaborator

Test failure is an unrelated timeout.

@DrewKimball DrewKimball merged commit d9b9eee into release-23.2 Jan 3, 2024
5 of 6 checks passed
@DrewKimball DrewKimball deleted the blathers/backport-release-23.2-116656 branch January 3, 2024 10:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants