Summary:
To be used for implementing Range Locking.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7753
Reviewed By: zhichao-cao
Differential Revision: D25378980
Pulled By: cheng-chang
fbshipit-source-id: 801a9c5cd92a84654ca2586b73e8f69001e89320
Summary:
This PR has two commits:
1. Modify the code to allow different Lock Managers (of any kind) to be used. It is implied that a LockManager uses its own custom LockTracker.
2. Add definitions for Range Locking (class Endpoint and GetRangeLock() function.
cheng-chang, is this what you've had in mind (should the PR have both item 1 and item 2?)
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7443
Reviewed By: zhichao-cao
Differential Revision: D24123172
Pulled By: cheng-chang
fbshipit-source-id: c6548ad6d4cc3c25f68d13b29147bc6fdf357185
Summary:
When `ASSERT_STATUS_CHECKED` is enabled, `transaction_test` does not pass without this PR.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7572
Test Plan: `ASSERT_STATUS_CHECKED=1 make -j32 transaction_test && ./transaction_test`
Reviewed By: zhichao-cao
Differential Revision: D24404319
Pulled By: cheng-chang
fbshipit-source-id: 13689035995366ab06d8eada3ea404e45fef8bc5
Summary:
In order to be able to introduce more locking protocols, we need to abstract out the locking subsystem in TransactionDB into a set of interfaces.
PR https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7013 introduces interface `LockTracker`. This PR is a follow up to take the first step to abstract out a `LockManager` interface.
Further modifications to the interface may be needed when introducing the first implementation of range lock. But the idea here is to put the range lock implementation based on range tree under the `utilities/transactions/lock/range/range_tree`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7532
Test Plan: point_lock_manager_test
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D24238731
Pulled By: cheng-chang
fbshipit-source-id: 2a9458cd8b3fb008d9529dbc4d3b28c24631f463
Summary:
We're going to support more locking protocols such as range lock in transaction.
However, in current design, `TransactionBase` has a member `tracked_keys` which assumes that point lock (lock a single key) is used, and is used in snapshot checking (isolation protocol). When using range lock, we may use read committed instead of snapshot checking as the isolation protocol.
The most significant usage scenarios of `tracked_keys` are:
1. pessimistic transaction uses it to track the locked keys, and unlock these keys when commit or rollback.
2. optimistic transaction does not lock keys upfront, it only tracks the lock intentions in tracked_keys, and do write conflict checking when commit.
3. each `SavePoint` tracks the keys that are locked since the `SavePoint`, `RollbackToSavePoint` or `PopSavePoint` relies on both the tracked keys in `SavePoint`s and `tracked_keys`.
Based on these scenarios, if we can abstract out a `LockTracker` interface to hold a set of tracked locks (can be keys or key ranges), and have methods that can be composed together to implement the scenarios, then `tracked_keys` can be an internal data structure of one implementation of `LockTracker`. See `utilities/transactions/lock/lock_tracker.h` for the detailed interface design, and `utilities/transactions/lock/point_lock_tracker.cc` for the implementation.
In the future, a `RangeLockTracker` can be implemented to track range locks without affecting other components.
After this PR, a clean interface for lock manager should be possible, and then ideally, we can have pluggable locking protocols.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7013
Test Plan: Run `transaction_test` and `optimistic_transaction_test`.
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D22163706
Pulled By: cheng-chang
fbshipit-source-id: f2860577b5334e31dd2994f5bc6d7c40d502b1b4
Adam Retter