batcheval: add BarrierRequest.WithLeaseAppliedIndex
#117967
Merged
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
|
This change is |
nvanbenschoten
approved these changes
Jan 19, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 9 of 9 files at r1, 9 of 9 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status:complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @erikgrinaker)
pkg/kv/kvnemesis/generator.go line 1126 at r2 (raw file):
// them within an existing range. This may race with a concurrent split, in // which case the Barrier will fail, but that's ok -- most should still // succeed.
Consider mentioning here that the validator will ignore this failure.
pkg/kv/kvserver/batcheval/cmd_barrier_test.go line 248 at r1 (raw file):
return errC } _ = barrierAsync
nit: can we delete this now that the function is used?
This can be used to detect whether a replica has applied the barrier command yet. Epic: none Release note: None
This only executes random `Barrier` requests, but does not verify that the barrier guarantees are actually satisfied (i.e. that all past and concurrent writes are applied before it returns). At least we get some execution coverage, and verify that it does not have negative interactions with other operations. Epic: none Release note: None
erikgrinaker
force-pushed
the
barrier-lai
branch
from
252a0c2
to
d4e4dac
Compare
|
bors r+ |
|
Build succeeded: |
craig bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2024
117612: rangefeed: fix premature checkpoint due to intent resolution race r=erikgrinaker a=erikgrinaker This PR depends on the following changes, which should be backported together: * #117787 * #117859 * #117967 * #117968 * #117969 --- It was possible for rangefeeds to emit a premature checkpoint, before all writes below its timestamp had been emitted. This in turn would cause changefeeds to not emit these write events at all. This could happen because `PushTxn` may return a false `ABORTED` status for a transaction that has in fact been committed, if the transaction record has been GCed (after resolving all intents). The timestamp cache does not retain sufficient information to disambiguate a committed transaction from an aborted one in this case, so it pessimistically assumes an abort (see `Replica.CanCreateTxnRecord` and `batcheval.SynthesizeTxnFromMeta`). However, the rangefeed txn pusher trusted this `ABORTED` status, ignoring the pending txn intents and allowing the resolved timestamp to advance past them before emitting the committed intents. This can lead to the following scenario: - A rangefeed is running on a lagging follower. - A txn writes an intent, which is replicated to the follower. - The closed timestamp advances past the intent. - The txn commits and resolves the intent at the original write timestamp, then GCs its txn record. This is not yet applied on the follower. - The rangefeed pushes the txn to advance its resolved timestamp. - The txn is GCed, so the push returns ABORTED (it can't know whether the txn was committed or aborted after its record is GCed). - The rangefeed disregards the "aborted" txn and advances the resolved timestamp, emitting a checkpoint. - The follower applies the resolved intent and emits an event below the checkpoint, violating the checkpoint guarantee. - The changefeed sees an event below its frontier and drops it, never emitting these events at all. This patch fixes the bug by submitting a barrier command to the leaseholder which waits for all past and ongoing writes (including intent resolution) to complete and apply, and then waits for the local replica to apply the barrier as well. This ensures any committed intent resolution will be applied and emitted before the transaction is removed from resolved timestamp tracking. Resolves #104309. Epic: none Release note (bug fix): fixed a bug where a changefeed could omit events in rare cases, logging the error "cdc ux violation: detected timestamp ... that is less or equal to the local frontier". This can happen if a rangefeed runs on a follower replica that lags significantly behind the leaseholder, a transaction commits and removes its transaction record before its intent resolution is applied on the follower, the follower's closed timestamp has advanced past the transaction commit timestamp, and the rangefeed attempts to push the transaction to a new timestamp (at least 10 seconds after the transaction began). This may cause the rangefeed to prematurely emit a checkpoint before emitting writes at lower timestamps, which in turn may cause the changefeed to drop these events entirely, never emitting them. Co-authored-by: Erik Grinaker <grinaker@cockroachlabs.com>
This was referenced Jan 29, 2024
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.
Extracted from #117612.
batcheval: add
BarrierRequest.WithLeaseAppliedIndexThis can be used to detect whether a replica has applied the barrier command yet.
Touches #104309.
kvnemsis: add support for
BarrieroperationsThis only executes random
Barrierrequests, but does not verify that the barrier guarantees are actually satisfied (i.e. that all past and concurrent writes are applied before it returns). At least we get some execution coverage, and verify that it does not have negative interactions with other operations.Epic: none
Release note: None