From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <alyapunov@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp56.i.mail.ru (smtp56.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.36])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5941469719
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Tue, 13 Oct 2020 22:00:28 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1601729099.git.korablev@tarantool.org>
 <743a25a986ebbe4388d8f6ffc7d1502f20a5efb9.1601729099.git.korablev@tarantool.org>
From: Aleksandr Lyapunov <alyapunov@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <343c3a98-2eec-1d3b-797b-77ed76c304bb@tarantool.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 22:00:27 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <743a25a986ebbe4388d8f6ffc7d1502f20a5efb9.1601729099.git.korablev@tarantool.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3 1/2] vinyl: rework upsert
	operation
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org>, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Cc: v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org

Hi, thanks for the patch! Se my 2 comments below:
(the second seems to be important)
Once they resolved, the whole patch is LGTM!

On 10/3/20 4:28 PM, Nikita Pettik wrote:
> into insert the upsert's tuple and the tuple stored in index can be
> different In our particular case, tuple stored on disk has two fields
Dot before `In` is missing.
> +		/*
> +		 * If it turns out that resulting tuple modifies primary
> +		 * key, then simply ignore this upsert.
> +		 */
> +		if (stmt != NULL &&
> +		    vy_apply_result_does_cross_pk(stmt, exec_res,
> +						  exec_res + mp_size, cmp_def,
> +						  column_mask)) {
I guess in case if `stmt_is_void = true` we must compare with `upsert` 
tuple,
not with `stmt` tuple.
> +			if (!suppress_error) {
> +				say_error("upsert operations %s are not applied"\
> +					  " due to primary key modification",
> +					  mp_str(ups_ops));
> +			}
> +			ups_ops = ups_ops_end;
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +		ups_ops = ups_ops_end;
> +		/*
> +		 * Result statement must satisfy space's format. Since upsert's
> +		 * tuple correctness is already checked in vy_upsert(), let's
> +		 * use its format to provide result verification.
> +		 */
> +		struct tuple_format *format = tuple_format(upsert);
> +		if (tuple_validate_raw(format, exec_res) != 0) {
> +			if (! suppress_error)
> +				diag_log();
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +		result_mp = exec_res;
> +		result_mp_end = exec_res + mp_size;
> +	}
> +	struct tuple *new_terminal_stmt = vy_stmt_new_replace(format, result_mp,
> +							      result_mp_end);
> +	region_truncate(region, region_svp);
> +	if (new_terminal_stmt == NULL)
> +		return NULL;
> +	vy_stmt_set_lsn(new_terminal_stmt, vy_stmt_lsn(upsert));
> +	return new_terminal_stmt;
> +}