-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
gms,service: add a feature to protect the usage of allow_mutation_read_page_without_live_row #15890
Conversation
🔴 CI State: FAILURE❌ - Build Build Failure:
Build Details:
|
77137be
to
8e15394
Compare
🔴 CI State: FAILURE✅ - Build Failed Tests (27/21164):
Build Details:
|
Aha, I remember that we sent the new bit without a feature thinking it will be ignored, but it's caught. |
🔴 CI State: FAILURE✅ - Build Failed Tests (28/21164):
Build Details:
|
8e15394
to
317fce1
Compare
I don't understand all this failures on such a simple patch. Rebased. |
Ran on m5ad.8xlarge, so should be okay disk-wise. |
Actually it ran on many instance types, but all have nvme as far as I can tell. |
@fruch is there any way to tell if the mount procedure worked correctly? |
🔴 CI State: FAILURE✅ - Build Failed Tests (21/21164):
Build Details:
|
Now, we are not collecting logs from that stage. Anyhow those failures are too reproducible, it doesn't fit the patterns we've seen when disk wasn't configured |
yes, looks like a genuine bug uncovered by CI (like it's supposed to) |
Looks like a genuine bug related to view schemas. Nodes are crashing due to uninitialized schema: #15904 |
All the failing tests I checked so far are related to schema problems. |
317fce1
to
7af279a
Compare
DO NOT MERGE!!!! I pushed a version which has the if condition commented, to see if that is what triggers all these failures. The patch now effectively just adds a feature flag. |
🔴 CI State: FAILURE✅ - Build Failed Tests (27/21268):
Build Details:
|
I looked at the test_topology_ops failure and created #15935. There are a couple of bugs that have already been detected by the test. For now I'll disable the part of the test which is detecting these issues (the one which is performing CQL writes) until we fix all known bugs. |
e09527e
to
ea9c8c7
Compare
Thanks. Why is this particular PR triggering this so reliably? I also saw this test fail at other occasions, but here it is very consistent. |
Actually, it is not that consistent. |
🔴 CI State: FAILURE✅ - Build Failed Tests (28/21268):
Build Details:
|
ea9c8c7
to
b5a4ad8
Compare
🔴 CI State: FAILURE✅ - Build Failed Tests (24/21278):
Build Details:
|
I have no other choice but to dig into these failures. Seems like there is a real problem behind all this. |
#16004 with a twist. Writes to |
b5a4ad8
to
1b87d9c
Compare
Looks like almost all failed tests are related to #16004. |
🔴 CI State: FAILURE✅ - Build Failed Tests (23/21824):
Build Details:
|
…d_page_without_live_row allow_mutation_read_page_without_live_row is a new option in the partition_slice::option option set. In a mixed clusters, old nodes possibly don't know this new option, so its usage must be protected by a cluster feature. This patch does just that. Fixes: scylladb#15795
1b87d9c
to
903c2a1
Compare
🟢 CI State: SUCCESS✅ - Build Build Details:
|
@kbr-scylla / @avikivity do you need to re-review or can this PR be merged as is? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd like at least one other person who knows this code, preferably someone who reviewed the previous PR (which extended the enum_set), to review this one before I merge.
That person is @tgrabiec. |
…d_page_without_live_row allow_mutation_read_page_without_live_row is a new option in the partition_slice::option option set. In a mixed clusters, old nodes possibly don't know this new option, so its usage must be protected by a cluster feature. This patch does just that. Fixes: #15795 Closes #15890 (cherry picked from commit f539612)
allow_mutation_read_page_without_live_row is a new option in the partition_slice::option option set. In a mixed clusters, old nodes possibly don't know this new option, so its usage must be protected by a cluster feature. This patch does just that.
Fixes: #15795