Tarantool development patches archive
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>,
	tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 10/11] box: enrich ER_READONLY with new details
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 09:51:58 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <76dcc21e-0518-b5ef-4b10-e7c8578e505a@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <225fd821-26be-3afb-3ec5-c0b33487c5a1@tarantool.org>



13.11.2021 02:24, Vladislav Shpilevoy пишет:
> Hi! Thanks for the review!
>
>> 12.11.2021 02:54, Vladislav Shpilevoy пишет:
>>> ER_READONLY used not to have any details about the exact reason
>>> why the instance is read-only. The patch changes that by adding
>>> new fields into the error which explain why the error happened and
>>> even help to avoid it for next requests.
>>>
>> Thanks for the changes!
>>
>> Please, find two comments below.
>>
>> Sorry for coming up late with this one, but I think it'd be good
>> to report ro reason in box.info. Maybe box.info.ro_reason or
>> something similar. Only when box.info.ro is true, of course.
>>
>> Otherwise we help the user only partially. He sees what's wrong when receives
>> an error, but has to check every parameter manually when checks box.info.ro
> Sounds useful, I added it in a new commit on top of the branch. See a new
> email in the same thread.
>
>>> diff --git a/src/box/box.cc b/src/box/box.cc
>>> index 1ed1ce3f8..323982969 100644
>>> --- a/src/box/box.cc
>>> +++ b/src/box/box.cc
>>> @@ -177,16 +177,54 @@ box_update_ro_summary(void)
>>>    static int
>>>    box_check_writable(void)
>>>    {
>>> -    if (is_ro_summary) {
>>> +    if (!is_ro_summary)
>>> +        return 0;
>>> +    struct error *e = diag_set(ClientError, ER_READONLY);
>>> +    struct raft *raft = box_raft();
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * In case of multiple reasons at the same time only one is reported.
>>> +     * But the order is important. For example, if the instance has election
>>> +     * enabled, for the client it is better to see that it is a 'follower'
>>> +     * and who is the leader than just see cfg 'read_only' is true.
>>> +     */
>>> +    if (raft_is_ro(raft)) {
>>> +        error_set_str(e, "reason", "election");
>>> +        error_set_str(e, "state", raft_state_str(raft->state));
>>> +        error_set_uint(e, "term", raft->volatile_term);
>>> +        uint32_t id = raft->leader;
>>> +        if (id != REPLICA_ID_NIL) {
>>> +            error_set_uint(e, "leader_id", id);
>>> +            struct replica *r = replica_by_id(id);
>>> +            /*
>>> +             * XXX: when the leader is dropped from _cluster, it
>>> +             * is not reported to Raft.
>>> +             */
>>> +            if (r != NULL)
>>> +                error_set_uuid(e, "leader_uuid", &r->uuid);
>>> +        }
>>> +    } else if (txn_limbo_is_ro(&txn_limbo)) {
>>> +        error_set_str(e, "reason", "synchro");
>>> +        uint32_t id = txn_limbo.owner_id;
>>> +        error_set_uint(e, "queue_owner_id", id);
>>> +        error_set_uint(e, "term", raft->volatile_term);
>> I just noticed, we should report txn_limbo_greatest_term here, probably.
>>
>> This instance (which received ER_READONLY) is the leader, but hasn't claimed
>> the limbo yet.
>> This only makes sense when limbo term is behind raft's one.
> Hmm, you are probably right. Thanks for noticing! Fixed in the
> previous commit.
>
> ====================
> @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ box_check_writable(void)
>   	} else if (txn_limbo_is_ro(&txn_limbo)) {
>   		error_set_str(e, "reason", "synchro");
>   		uint32_t id = txn_limbo.owner_id;
> -		uint64_t term = raft->volatile_term;
> +		uint64_t term = txn_limbo.promote_greatest_term;
>   		error_set_uint(e, "queue_owner_id", id);
>   		error_set_uint(e, "term", term);
> ====================

Thanks for the changes!

One final note:
I propose to move box_ro_reason() from the last commit here and use it
when setting error reason, so that error.reason would be the same as
box.info.ro_reason.


LGTM otherwise.

-- 
Serge Petrenko


  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-15  6:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-11 23:54 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 00/11] ER_READONLY reason Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 01/11] diag: return created error from diag_set() Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 10/11] box: enrich ER_READONLY with new details Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-12  7:30   ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-12 23:24     ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-15  6:51       ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches [this message]
2021-11-15 21:56         ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-16  9:53           ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-16 22:08             ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 11/11] error: report ER_READONLY reason in message Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 02/11] uuid: move into libcore Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 03/11] error: introduce error_payload Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 04/11] error: move code to struct error from ClientError Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 05/11] error: use error_payload to store optional members Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 06/11] error: use error_payload in MessagePack codecs Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 07/11] error: use error_payload in Lua Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 08/11] luatest: copy config in cluster:build_server() Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-11 23:54 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 09/11] luatest: add new helpers for 'server' object Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-12 23:25 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 12/11] error: introduce box.info.ro_reason Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-15  6:53   ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-16 22:08 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 00/11] ER_READONLY reason Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=76dcc21e-0518-b5ef-4b10-e7c8578e505a@tarantool.org \
    --to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
    --cc=sergepetrenko@tarantool.org \
    --cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \
    --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 10/11] box: enrich ER_READONLY with new details' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox