-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.9k
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
ddl: Fixed partitioning a non-partitioned table with placement rules #57560
Merged
ti-chi-bot
merged 24 commits into
pingcap:master
from
mjonss:partition-by-placement-rules-55705
Nov 29, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
24 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
258638a
Fixed partitioning a non-partitioned table with placement rules
mjonss 93a14c9
Linting
mjonss 9210c20
Removed handling of partition bundles, since it was only using table …
mjonss f156b89
Fixed update placement bundles for partitions
mjonss 58d859d
In REORG PARTITION we first register the intermediate state and then …
mjonss 227ccd8
Fixed failure and added tests for rollback of reorg partition and pla…
mjonss 9200fbb
Added more tests and one minor fix
mjonss d58c8d2
Linting
mjonss 54abd6d
More advanced comparison for bundle rules leader overlap
mjonss 2f97ac7
Renamed a function and added more comments
mjonss 7fcdaf3
Updated check for bundle, to match PD
mjonss cb2bd27
Added enhancement issue reference
mjonss f480038
Linting
mjonss 2a4642a
Linting
mjonss 274760f
Merge remote-tracking branch 'pingcap/master' into partition-by-place…
mjonss 5d78361
bazel_prepare
mjonss acee32e
Simplified CheckBundle in mockPlacementManager
mjonss ee5cf49
Linting
mjonss 05a6a14
Eased the CheckBundle to pass more test.
mjonss b25fe4a
Simplified CheckBundle
mjonss 1c43fbe
Removed non-needed struct variables for check
mjonss 17dfd76
Removed old comment
mjonss fd74392
Added more comments and simplified CheckBundle further
mjonss c6e1ad0
Removed confusing test.
mjonss File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Why the new bundles should include old partitions? The old bundles have already defined these rules and still take effects here.
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.
Oh, so if the Bundle is overwritten, the older bundle rules will still be in effect?
Like if the first bundle had rules for table id 111, part id 112 and 113, and the new bundle would have table id 111, partition id 113 and 114, would part id 112 still be placed as the old bundle rules or would it be placed without any rules?
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.
This, I believe.
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.
A better example:
During the DDL we would still want the original p1M to follow the table level rule, so we keep it in the bundle.
When the final bundles will be created it will not be included.
Since the table keeps its table id (for REORGANIZE PARTITION) there are no other bundles that covers the inherited table's placement rules for the original partition p1M, which means we need to cover it during the time of the DDL, since it can still be accessed (and double written).
Another alternative would be to create partition level bundles for the old replaced partitions, and let them be removed by GC later, but I think that would qualify for a separate PR.
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 think the rule bundle check improvements would be better addressed in a separate PR, I will update the check and add a unit test here, but when looking at the code in PD, it looks like the example in the comment for
prepareRulesForApply()
is wrong, if I'm reading the code correctly, I would expect it to return 'ruleC and ruleD`, since ruleB would override ruleA, and ruleC would override all previous rules, due to its group has override set, and finally ruleD would just be added.And it does not check any key ranges, neither in this function or in
checkApplyRules()
, which only checks that there are at least one leader or voter, and max one leader.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.
The example would be correct if the rules would be ordered in reverse, i.e. according to their GroupID, ID.
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 have changed the logic to only check bundles one by one, and tried to mimic the logic of PDs
prepareRulesForApply()
andcheckApplyRules()
, for any other check I created #57693 as a follow up.