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
Summary:
When dynamically linking two binaries together, different builds of RocksDB from two sources might cause errors. To provide a tool for user to solve the problem, the RocksDB namespace is changed to a flag which can be overridden in build time.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/6433
Test Plan: Build release, all and jtest. Try to build with ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE with another flag.
Differential Revision: D19977691
fbshipit-source-id: aa7f2d0972e1c31d75339ac48478f34f6cfcfb3e
Summary:
This avoids rehashing the key in TrackKey() in case the key is not already
in the map of tracked keys, which will happen at least once per key used in a
transaction.
Additionally fix two typos.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5696
Differential Revision: D17210178
Pulled By: lth
fbshipit-source-id: 7e2c28e9e505c1d1c1535d435250cf2b191a6fdf
Summary:
MyRocks currently sets `max_write_buffer_number_to_maintain` in order to maintain enough history for transaction conflict checking. The effectiveness of this approach depends on the size of memtables. When memtables are small, it may not keep enough history; when memtables are large, this may consume too much memory.
We are proposing a new way to configure memtable list history: by limiting the memory usage of immutable memtables. The new option is `max_write_buffer_size_to_maintain` and it will take precedence over the old `max_write_buffer_number_to_maintain` if they are both set to non-zero values. The new option accounts for the total memory usage of flushed immutable memtables and mutable memtable. When the total usage exceeds the limit, RocksDB may start dropping immutable memtables (which is also called trimming history), starting from the oldest one.
The semantics of the old option actually works both as an upper bound and lower bound. History trimming will start if number of immutable memtables exceeds the limit, but it will never go below (limit-1) due to history trimming.
In order the mimic the behavior with the new option, history trimming will stop if dropping the next immutable memtable causes the total memory usage go below the size limit. For example, assuming the size limit is set to 64MB, and there are 3 immutable memtables with sizes of 20, 30, 30. Although the total memory usage is 80MB > 64MB, dropping the oldest memtable will reduce the memory usage to 60MB < 64MB, so in this case no memtable will be dropped.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5022
Differential Revision: D14394062
Pulled By: miasantreble
fbshipit-source-id: 60457a509c6af89d0993f988c9b5c2aa9e45f5c5
Summary:
If a memtable definitely covers a key, there isn't a need to check older memtables.
We can skip them by checking the earliest sequence number.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/4941
Differential Revision: D13932666
fbshipit-source-id: b9d52f234b8ad9dd3bf6547645cd457175a3ca9b
Summary:
When using `PRIu64` type of printf specifier, current code base does the following:
```
#ifndef __STDC_FORMAT_MACROS
#define __STDC_FORMAT_MACROS
#endif
#include <inttypes.h>
```
However, this can be simplified to
```
#include <cinttypes>
```
as long as flag `-std=c++11` is used.
This should solve issues like https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/5159
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/5402
Differential Revision: D15701195
Pulled By: miasantreble
fbshipit-source-id: 6dac0a05f52aadb55e9728038599d3d2e4b59d03
Summary:
ValidateSnapshot checks if another txn has committed a value to about-to-be-locked key since a particular snapshot. It applies an optimization of looking into only the memtable if snapshot seq is larger than the earliest seq in the memtables. With a long-running txn in WritePrepared, the prepared value might be flushed out to the disk and yet it commits after the snapshot, which breaks this optimization. The patch fixes that by disabling this optimization when the min_uncomitted seq at the time the snapshot was taken is lower than earliest seq in the memtables.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/4961
Differential Revision: D14009947
Pulled By: maysamyabandeh
fbshipit-source-id: 1d11679950326f7c4094b433e6b821b729f08850
Summary:
This is implemented by extending ReadCallback with another function `MaxUnpreparedSequenceNumber` which returns the largest visible sequence number for the current transaction, if there is uncommitted data written to DB. Otherwise, it returns zero, indicating no uncommitted data.
There are the places where reads had to be modified.
- Get and Seek/Next was just updated to seek to max(snapshot_seq, MaxUnpreparedSequenceNumber()) instead, and iterate until a key was visible.
- Prev did not need need updates since it did not use the Seek to sequence number optimization. Assuming that locks were held when writing unprepared keys, and ValidateSnapshot runs, there should only be committed keys and unprepared keys of the current transaction, all of which are visible. Prev will simply iterate to get the last visible key.
- Reseeking to skip keys optimization was also disabled for write unprepared, since it's possible to hit the max_skip condition even while reseeking. There needs to be some way to resolve infinite looping in this case.
Closes https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/3955
Differential Revision: D8286688
Pulled By: lth
fbshipit-source-id: 25e42f47fdeb5f7accea0f4fd350ef35198caafe
Summary:
Implements ValidateSnapshot for WritePrepared txns and also adds a unit test to clarify the contract of this function.
Closes https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/3101
Differential Revision: D6199405
Pulled By: maysamyabandeh
fbshipit-source-id: ace509934c307ea5d26f4bbac5f836d7c80fd240
Summary: MyRocks wants to be able to un-lock a key that was just locked by GetForUpdate(). To do this safely, I am now keeping track of the number of reads(for update) and writes for each key in a transaction. UndoGetForUpdate() will only unlock a key if it hasn't been written and the read count reaches 0.
Test Plan: more unit tests
Reviewers: igor, rven, yhchiang, spetrunia, sdong
Reviewed By: spetrunia, sdong
Subscribers: spetrunia, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D47043
Summary:
Currently, transactions can fail even if there is no actual write conflict. This is due to relying on only the memtables to check for write-conflicts. Users have to tune memtable settings to try to avoid this, but it's hard to figure out exactly how to tune these settings.
With this diff, TransactionDB will use both memtables and SST files to determine if there are any write conflicts. This relies on the fact that BlockBasedTable stores sequence numbers for all writes that happen after any open snapshot. Also, D50295 is needed to prevent SingleDelete from disappearing writes (the TODOs in this test code will be fixed once the other diff is approved and merged).
Note that Optimistic transactions will still rely on tuning memtable settings as we do not want to read from SST while on the write thread. Also, memtable settings can still be used to reduce how often TransactionDB needs to read SST files.
Test Plan: unit tests, db bench
Reviewers: rven, yhchiang, kradhakrishnan, IslamAbdelRahman, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb, yoshinorim
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D50475
Summary: Transaction::RollbackToSavePoint() will now release any locks that were taken since the previous SavePoint. To do this cleanly, I moved tracked_keys_ management into TransactionBase.
Test Plan: New Transaction test.
Reviewers: igor, rven, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: dhruba, spetrunia, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D46761
Summary:
Clean up transactions to use the new RollbackToSavePoint api in WriteBatchWithIndex.
Note, this diff depends on Pessimistic Transactions diff and ManagedSnapshot diff (D40869 and D43293).
Test Plan: unit tests
Reviewers: rven, yhchiang, kradhakrishnan, spetrunia, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D43371
Summary:
Initial implementation of Pessimistic Transactions. This diff contains the api changes discussed in D38913. This diff is pretty large, so let me know if people would prefer to meet up to discuss it.
MyRocks folks: please take a look at the API in include/rocksdb/utilities/transaction[_db].h and let me know if you have any issues.
Also, you'll notice a couple of TODOs in the implementation of RollbackToSavePoint(). After chatting with Siying, I'm going to send out a separate diff for an alternate implementation of this feature that implements the rollback inside of WriteBatch/WriteBatchWithIndex. We can then decide which route is preferable.
Next, I'm planning on doing some perf testing and then integrating this diff into MongoRocks for further testing.
Test Plan: Unit tests, db_bench parallel testing.
Reviewers: igor, rven, sdong, yhchiang, yoshinorim
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: hermanlee4, maykov, spetrunia, leveldb, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D40869
Cheng Chang