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-22.2: storage: fix CheckSSTConflicts handling of MVCC range keys #94115

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 22, 2022

Conversation

blathers-crl[bot]
Copy link

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot commented Dec 22, 2022

Backport 1/1 commits from #94045 on behalf of @erikgrinaker.

/cc @cockroachdb/release


CheckSSTConflicts keeps an SST and engine iterator in sync while checking for conflicts. To avoid seek costs, it attempts to step the engine iterator in case the corresponding SST key is nearby. However, this stepping could step right past an MVCC range key overlapping the SST key, which would break conflict checks with MVCC range tombstones.

This patch seeks the engine iterator back to the SST key if we step past it and the range key changed.

Resolves #93968.

Release note (bug fix): When experimental MVCC range tombstones are enabled (they're disabled by default), a bulk ingestion (e.g. an import) could in some situations fail to properly check for conflicts with existing MVCC range tombstones. This could cause the ingestion to write below a recently written MVCC range tombstone, in turn losing the ingested data. This could only happen in rare circumstances where a bulk ingestion was applied concurrently with an import cancellation.


Release justification: fixes potential (but rare) data loss issue.

`CheckSSTConflicts` keeps an SST and engine iterator in sync while
checking for conflicts. To avoid seek costs, it attempts to step the
engine iterator in case the corresponding SST key is nearby. However,
this stepping could step right past an MVCC range key overlapping the
SST key, which would break conflict checks with MVCC range tombstones.

This patch seeks the engine iterator back to the SST key if we step past
it and the range key changed.

Release note (bug fix): When experimental MVCC range tombstones are
enabled (they're disabled by default), a bulk ingestion (e.g. an import)
could in some situations fail to properly check for conflicts with
existing MVCC range tombstones. This could cause the ingestion to write
below a recently written MVCC range tombstone, in turn losing the
ingested data. This could only happen in rare circumstances where a bulk
ingestion was applied concurrently with an import cancellation.
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested review from a team as code owners December 22, 2022 00:51
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot force-pushed the blathers/backport-release-22.2-94045 branch from 9b8610d to c2f64a3 Compare December 22, 2022 00:51
@blathers-crl
Copy link
Author

blathers-crl bot commented Dec 22, 2022

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

  • Patches should only be created for serious issues or test-only changes.
  • Patches should not break backwards-compatibility.
  • Patches should change as little code as possible.
  • Patches should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
  • Patches should not add new functionality.
  • Patches must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.
If some of the basic criteria cannot be satisfied, ensure that the exceptional criteria are satisfied within.
  • 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.
  • The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.

Add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this backport.

Some other things to consider:

  • What did we do to ensure that a user that doesn’t know & care about this backport, has no idea that it happened?
  • Will this work in a cluster of mixed patch versions? Did we test that?
  • If a user upgrades a patch version, uses this feature, and then downgrades, what happens?

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested review from erikgrinaker, itsbilal and a team December 22, 2022 00:51
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot. labels Dec 22, 2022
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

Copy link
Member

@itsbilal itsbilal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@erikgrinaker erikgrinaker merged commit 601adec into release-22.2 Dec 22, 2022
@erikgrinaker erikgrinaker deleted the blathers/backport-release-22.2-94045 branch December 22, 2022 16:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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