[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 2/2] wal: reorder tx rows so that a tx ends on a global row

[Sergey Ostanevich]

Hi!


On 01 июн 15:40, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> On 29/05/2020 13:42, Serge Petrenko wrote:
> > 
> > 29.05.2020 01:54, Vladislav Shpilevoy пишет:
> >> Thanks   for   the   patch,
> >> But   I   have  a  comment!
> >> It   is   a   nice  crutch,
> >> Yet we need one more moment.
> >>
> >> The patch basically sacrifices transaction rows order
> >> and WAL correctness for the sake of replication. It
> >> does not look right. Why can't we leave WAL as is, and
> >> tweak all these things in relay? It looks really wrong
> >> to change statements order. Especially taking into
> >> account this is needed *only* for replication. For example,
> >> consider FKs.
> >>
> >> A local space has a FOREIGN KEY reference to a global
> >> space. To make it work, we need to insert into the global
> >> space first, and then into the local space. When you change
> >> the order, the local insert goes first, and violates the
> >> foreign key. So if we will check FKs on recovery (when we
> >> will have FKs in box), this patch will break them.
> >>
> >> Alternative to relay - append a dummy NOP statement in the
> >> end of the transaction, which would be global. But this is
> >> also a crutch. I think the TSNs figuring out should be done
> >> in relay. It could keep track of the current transaction,
> >> change TSNs and is_commit when necessary.
> > 
> > Hi! Thanks for the review!
> > 
> > I understand this is a crutch, but it's the best solution I could come
> > up with.  Appending dummy  NOPs will increase instance LSN by one,
> > which  also looks  ugly. The correct solution is, indeed, to collect  a tx
> > in relay and mangle with it in any means  we need before sending, however,
> > I faced some problems with this approach. See more in v1 of this patchset
> > (letter [PATCH 2/2] replication: make relay send txs in batches).
> > 
> > By the way, your txn_limbo implementation assigns the tx an lsn of the last
> > tx row, which doesn't work in case the last row is a local one. So, looks like
> > we either need to reorder the rows or insert a NOP at the tx end. Or just
> > assign the tx an lsn of the last global row.
> > 
> > Still, it's up to you which solution you find a better one, and I'll
> > implement it.
> 
> I guess the current solution is ok then. Feel free to add
> Reviewed-by: Vladislav Shpilevoy <vshpilevoi at mail.ru>. First version
> looks better, but seems it will take too much time to rework xlog
> streaming API.
> 
> Although did you try? I don't know xlog code well, but perhaps you could
> just forbid to reuse ibuf for sequential rows until explicit reset() or
> something.
> 
> I also have a thought about is_commit necessity. Why do we need it? Why isn't
> tsn enough? I saw in xrow code (xrow_header_encode()) that there are 2
> combinations:
> 
> - No tsn, and no is_commit for single statement transactions. Is_commit
>   is assumed implicitly;
> 
> - tsn is encoded, and the last statement has is_commit.
> 
> But in fact the is_commit flag always can be determined implicitly. Consider
> all the possible cases:
> 
> - row1: tsn1, row2: tsn2. Then all rows [..., row1] belong to one
>   transaction, all rows [row2, ...] belong to a next transaction;
> 
> - row1: no tsn, row2: tsn2. Then row1 is first single-statement
>   transaction, [row2, ...] - next transaction.
> 
> - row1: tsn1, row2: no tsn. Then the same as previous. [..., row1] -
>   first transaction, row2 - second single-statement transaction.
> 
> - row1: no tsn, row2: no tsn. Two single statement transactions.
> 
> It means, transaction border can be determined by tsn difference
> between two sequential rows. This is allowed because transactions
> are never mixed. Tsn difference is border. And since is_rollback
> does not exist (it will in sync replication, but as a separate entry,
> for multiple transactions), and is_commit *already* is assumed
> implicitly for single statement transactions, why not to calculate it
> implicitly for all transactions?

Shall we need a readahead then?
Consider you have a bactch arrived and you have to guess if the last op
in it actually is_commit? 
What if you have no following ops for a long time? Will you hold the txn
until the next one arrived?

Sergos