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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

txn: fix point-lock non-existent key with aggressive locking under rc #41528

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 22, 2023
Merged

txn: fix point-lock non-existent key with aggressive locking under rc #41528

merged 4 commits into from
Feb 22, 2023

Conversation

ekexium
Copy link
Contributor

@ekexium ekexium commented Feb 16, 2023 •
edited
Loading

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #41527

Problem Summary:

Under RC, point-get with lock on a non-existent key will not actually lock it. Aggressive locking didn't handle this case well and caused the committer to prewrite this non-existent key, thus generating "pessimistic lock not found" error.

What is changed and how it works?

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

Side effects

  • Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
  • Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
  • Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

  • Affects user behaviors
  • Contains syntax changes
  • Contains variable changes
  • Contains experimental features
  • Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

@ekexium
udpate client-go and add a test case for point-lock with aggressive l…
a5651de 
…ocking under RC isolation level

Signed-off-by: ekexium <ekexium@gmail.com>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

ti-chi-bot commented Feb 16, 2023 •
edited
Loading

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • cfzjywxk
  • zyguan

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added do-not-merge/needs-triage-completed release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 16, 2023
@ekexium
update bazel
1033de1 
Signed-off-by: ekexium <ekexium@gmail.com>
@ekexium
move test to realtikvtest
a5ea7ec 
Signed-off-by: ekexium <ekexium@gmail.com>
@ekexium ekexium force-pushed the fix-aggresssive-locking-with-lock-if-exist branch from 7586b4e to a5ea7ec Compare February 16, 2023 16:58
@ekexium ekexium requested a review from a team as a code owner February 17, 2023 00:20
@ekexium ekexium force-pushed the fix-aggresssive-locking-with-lock-if-exist branch from 946725f to a5ea7ec Compare February 17, 2023 00:33
zyguan
zyguan approved these changes Feb 20, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@zyguan zyguan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Rest LGTM.

go.mod Outdated
@@ -274,5 +274,6 @@ replace (
// fix potential security issue(CVE-2020-26160) introduced by indirect dependency.
github.com/dgrijalva/jwt-go => github.com/form3tech-oss/jwt-go v3.2.6-0.20210809144907-32ab6a8243d7+incompatible
github.com/pingcap/tidb/parser => ./parser
github.com/tikv/client-go/v2 => github.com/ekexium/client-go/v2 v2.0.0-alpha.0.20230216162745-b5208457bdac
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We can switch back to the latest client-go since tikv/client-go#705 has been merged.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 20, 2023
@ekexium
replace client-go
33c77dd 
Signed-off-by: ekexium <eke@fastmail.com>
@ekexium ekexium force-pushed the fix-aggresssive-locking-with-lock-if-exist branch from 31d6295 to 33c77dd Compare February 20, 2023 14:51
@ekexium
Copy link
Contributor Author

ekexium commented Feb 22, 2023

/run-check-issue-triage-complete

@ekexium
Copy link
Contributor Author

ekexium commented Feb 22, 2023

/retest

@ekexium
Copy link
Contributor Author

ekexium commented Feb 22, 2023

/run-check-issue-triage-complete

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels Feb 22, 2023
@cfzjywxk
Copy link
Contributor

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge.

Commit hash: 33c77dd

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Feb 22, 2023
@ekexium
Copy link
Contributor Author

ekexium commented Feb 22, 2023

/retest

@ekexium
Copy link
Contributor Author

ekexium commented Feb 22, 2023

/retest

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot merged commit f931359 into pingcap:master Feb 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@zyguan zyguan zyguan approved these changes

@cfzjywxk cfzjywxk cfzjywxk approved these changes

@MyonKeminta MyonKeminta Awaiting requested review from MyonKeminta

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Enabling aggressive locking makes TestPointGetLockExistKey fail
4 participants
@ekexium @ti-chi-bot @cfzjywxk @zyguan