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.

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

fix: check split assignment before pushing mutation #18134

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 21, 2024

Conversation

tabVersion
Copy link
Contributor

@tabVersion tabVersion commented Aug 20, 2024

I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

Background: #16235

The pr increases overhead when pushing down mutation. Please revert after resolving the doubled assignment issue.

Checklist

  • I have written necessary rustdoc comments
  • I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
  • I have added test labels as necessary. See details.
  • I have added fuzzing tests or opened an issue to track them. (Optional, recommended for new SQL features Sqlsmith: Sql feature generation #7934).
  • My PR contains breaking changes. (If it deprecates some features, please create a tracking issue to remove them in the future).
  • All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)
  • My PR changes performance-critical code. (Please run macro/micro-benchmarks and show the results.)
  • My PR contains critical fixes that are necessary to be merged into the latest release. (Please check out the details)

Documentation

  • My PR needs documentation updates. (Please use the Release note section below to summarize the impact on users)

Release note

If this PR includes changes that directly affect users or other significant modifications relevant to the community, kindly draft a release note to provide a concise summary of these changes. Please prioritize highlighting the impact these changes will have on users.

Signed-off-by: tabVersion <tabvision@bupt.icu>
Signed-off-by: tabVersion <tabvision@bupt.icu>
@@ -588,6 +588,32 @@ where
)
}

pub fn validate_assignment(assignment: &mut HashMap<ActorId, Vec<SplitImpl>>) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please revert after resolving the doubled assignment issue.

As it's just an in-memory validation, I think it's totally okay to keep it here.


for (split_id, actor_ids) in &mut split_to_actor {
if actor_ids.len() > 1 {
tracing::warn!(split_id = ?split_id, actor_ids = ?actor_ids, "split is assigned to multiple actors");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tend to panic here to expose the problem early. Otherwise, it will almost certainly trigger a panic in storage side, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't know the root cause and have no way to fix the persisted data. From the frequency the users meet the problem, letting it panic and telling users to drop all sources can hurt the users' experience.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Otherwise, it will almost certainly trigger a panic in storage side, right?

Oh, the following code will fix the multiple assignment issue and the compactor will no longer panic.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Otherwise, it will almost certainly trigger a panic in storage side, right?

Oh, the following code will fix the multiple assignment issue and the compactor will no longer panic.

I see your point

Copy link
Member

@fuyufjh fuyufjh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM but it's just a dirty fix. We still need to figure out the actual cause.

@tabVersion tabVersion added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 21, 2024
@tabVersion tabVersion added need-cherry-pick-release-1.10 Open a cherry-pick PR to branch release-1.10 after the current PR is merged need-cherry-pick-release-2.0 labels Aug 21, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 723833a Aug 21, 2024
28 of 41 checks passed
@tabVersion tabVersion deleted the tab/validate-mutation branch August 21, 2024 04:00
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 21, 2024
Signed-off-by: tabVersion <tabvision@bupt.icu>
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 21, 2024
Signed-off-by: tabVersion <tabvision@bupt.icu>
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 22, 2024
Signed-off-by: tabVersion <tabvision@bupt.icu>
Co-authored-by: Bohan Zhang <tabvision@bupt.icu>
zwang28 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2024
Signed-off-by: tabVersion <tabvision@bupt.icu>
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2024
Signed-off-by: tabVersion <tabvision@bupt.icu>
Co-authored-by: Bohan Zhang <tabvision@bupt.icu>
fuyufjh added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 17, 2024
@fuyufjh fuyufjh mentioned this pull request Sep 17, 2024
9 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ci/run-e2e-single-node-tests need-cherry-pick-release-1.10 Open a cherry-pick PR to branch release-1.10 after the current PR is merged need-cherry-pick-release-2.0 type/fix Bug fix
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants