Summary: 1. Range Deletion Tombstone structure 2. Modify Add() in table_builder to make it usable for adding range del tombstones 3. Expose NewTombstoneIterator() API in table_reader
Test Plan: table_test.cc (now BlockBasedTableBuilder::Add() only accepts InternalKey. I make table_test only pass InternalKey to BlockBasedTableBuidler. Also test writing/reading range deletion tombstones in table_test )
Reviewers: sdong, IslamAbdelRahman, lightmark, andrewkr
Reviewed By: andrewkr
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D61473
Summary: make transactionDB working with StackableDB
Test Plan: make all check -j64
Reviewers: andrewkr, yiwu, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D60705
Summary: This tests that a prepared transaction is not lost after several crashes, restarts, and memtable flushes.
Test Plan: TwoPhaseLongPrepareTest
Reviewers: sdong
Subscribers: hermanlee4, andrewkr, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D58185
Summary:
TransactionTest.TwoPhaseMultiThreadTest runs forever under TSAN and our CI builds time out
looks like the reason is that some threads keep running and other threads dont get a chance to increment the counter
Test Plan: run the test under TSAN
Reviewers: sdong, horuff
Reviewed By: horuff
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D58359
Summary:
- Make sure we clean up recovered_transactions_ on DBImpl destructor
- delete leaked txns and env in TransactionTest
Test Plan: Run transaction_test under valgrind
Reviewers: sdong, andrewkr, yhchiang, horuff
Reviewed By: horuff
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D58263
Summary:
1. prepare()
2. crash
3. recover
4. commit()
5. crash
6. data is lost
This is due to the transaction data still only residing in the WAL but because the logs were flushed on the first recovery the data is ignored on the second recovery. We must scan all logs found on recovery and only ignore redundant data at the time of replay. It is not possible to know which logs still contain relevant data at time of recovery. We cannot simply ignore a log because all of the non-2pc data it contains has already been written to L0.
The changes made to MemTableInserter are to ensure that prepared sections are still recovered even if all of the non-2pc data in that log has already been flushed to L0.
Test Plan: Provided test.
Reviewers: sdong
Subscribers: andrewkr, hermanlee4, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D57729
Summary:
Consider the following WAL with 4 batch entries prefixed with their sequence at time of memtable insert.
[1: BEGIN_PREPARE, PUT, PUT, PUT, PUT, END_PREPARE(a)]
[1: BEGIN_PREPARE, PUT, PUT, PUT, PUT, END_PREPARE(b)]
[4: COMMIT(a)]
[7: COMMIT(b)]
The first two batches do not consume any sequence numbers so are both prefixed with seq=1.
For 2pc commit, memtable insertion takes place before COMMIT batch is written to WAL.
We can see that sequence number consumption takes place between WAL entries giving us the seemingly sparse sequence prefix for WAL entries.
This is a valid WAL.
Because with 2PC markers one WriteBatch points to another batch containing its inserts a writebatch can consume more or less sequence numbers than the number of sequence consuming entries that it contains.
We can see that, given the entries in the WAL, 6 sequence ids were consumed. Yet on recovery the maximum sequence consumed would be 7 + 3 (the number of sequence numbers consumed by COMMIT(b))
So, now upon recovery we must track the actual consumption of sequence numbers.
In the provided scenario there will be no sequence gaps, but it is possible to produce a sequence gap. This should not be a problem though. correct?
Test Plan: provided test.
Reviewers: sdong
Subscribers: andrewkr, leveldb, dhruba, hermanlee4
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D57645
Summary: Refactored db_bench transaction stress tests so that they can be called from unit tests as well.
Test Plan: run new unit test as well as db_bench
Reviewers: yhchiang, IslamAbdelRahman, sdong
Reviewed By: IslamAbdelRahman
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D55203
Summary: Previously, reusing a transaction (by passing it as an argument to BeginTransaction) would not clear the transaction's snapshot. This is not a clear, well-definited behavior.
Test Plan: improved test
Reviewers: sdong, IslamAbdelRahman, horuff, jkedgar
Reviewed By: jkedgar
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D55053
Summary: Add function to reinitialize a transaction object so that it can be reused. This is an optimization so users can potentially avoid reallocating transaction objects.
Test Plan: added tests
Reviewers: yhchiang, kradhakrishnan, IslamAbdelRahman, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: jkedgar, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D53835
Summary: There is an issue in DBImpl::WriteImpl where if an empty writebatch comes in and sync=true then the logs will be marked as being synced yet the sync never actually happens because there is no data in the writebatch. This causes the next incoming batch to hang while waiting for the logs to complete syncing. This fix syncs logs even if the writebatch is empty.
Test Plan: DoubleEmptyBatch unit test in transaction_test.
Reviewers: yoshinorim, hermanlee4, sdong, ngbronson, anthony
Subscribers: leveldb, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D54057
Summary:
One test in transaction_test.cc forgets to call SyncPoint::DisableProcessing().
As a result, a program might to access the SyncPoint singleton after it
already goes out of scope.
This patch fix this error by calling SyncPoint::DisableProcessing().
Test Plan: transaction_test
Reviewers: sdong, IslamAbdelRahman, kradhakrishnan, anthony
Reviewed By: anthony
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D54033
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:
Doing inline checking of transaction expiration instead of
using a callback.
Test Plan: To be added
Reviewers: anthony
Reviewed By: anthony
Subscribers: leveldb, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D53673
Summary: Add support to change write options after creating a transaction. This is needed for MongoRocks.
Test Plan: added test
Reviewers: sdong, rven, kradhakrishnan, IslamAbdelRahman, yhchiang
Reviewed By: yhchiang
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D51867
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: When SetSnapshot() is used the caller immediately knows a snapshot has been created, but when SetSnapshotOnNextOperation() is used the caller needs a way to get notified when that snapshot has been generated. This creates an interface that the client can implement that will be called at the time the snapshot is created.
Test Plan: Added a new SetSnapshotOnNextOperationWithNotification test into the transaction_test.
Reviewers: sdong, anthony
Reviewed By: anthony
Subscribers: yoshinorim, leveldb, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D51177
Summary:
Fixes T8781168.
Added a new function EnableAutoCompactions in db.h to be publicly
avialable. This allows compaction to be re-enabled after disabling it via
SetOptions
Refactored code to set the dbptr earlier on in TransactionDB::Open and DB::Open
Temporarily disable auto_compaction in TransactionDB::Open until dbptr is set to
prevent race condition.
Test Plan:
Ran make all check
verified fix on myrocks side:
was able to reproduce the seg fault with
../tools/mysqltest.sh --mem --force rocksdb.drop_table
method was to manually sleep the thread after DB::Open but before TransactionDB ptr was
assigned in transaction_db_impl.cc:
DB::Open(db_options, dbname, column_families_copy, handles, &db);
clock_t goal = (60000 * 10) + clock();
while (goal > clock());
...dbptr(aka rdb) gets assigned below
verified my changes fixed the issue.
Also added unit test 'ToggleAutoCompaction' in transaction_test.cc
Reviewers: hermanlee4, anthony
Reviewed By: anthony
Subscribers: alex, dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D51147
Summary:
MyRocks needs the ability to clear a snapshot for Read Committed support
Test Plan: transaction_test
Reviewers: anthony
Reviewed By: anthony
Subscribers: dhruba
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D48861
Summary: Support for Transaction::CreateSnapshotOnNextOperation(). This is to fix a write-conflict race-condition that Yoshinori was running into when testing MyRocks with LinkBench.
Test Plan: New tests
Reviewers: yhchiang, spetrunia, rven, igor, yoshinorim, sdong
Reviewed By: igor
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D48099
Summary:
MyRocks reported some perfomance issues when inserting many keys into a transaction due to the cost of inserting new keys into WriteBatchWithIndex. Frequently, they don't even need the keys to be indexed as they don't need to read them back. DisableIndexing() can be used to avoid the cost of indexing.
I also plan on eventually investigating if we can improve WriteBatchWithIndex performance. But even if we improved the perf here, it is still beneficial to be able to disable the indexing all together for large transactions.
Test Plan: unit test
Reviewers: igor, rven, yoshinorim, spetrunia, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D48471
Summary:
WriteBatchWithIndex::GetFromBatchAndDB only works correctly for overwrite_key=false. Transactions use overwrite_key=true (since WriteBatchWithIndex::GetIteratorWithBase only works when overwrite_key=true). So currently, Transactions could return incorrectly merged results when calling Get/GetForUpdate().
Until a permanent fix can be put in place, Transaction::Get[ForUpdate] and WriteBatchWithIndex::GetFromBatch[AndDB] will now return MergeInProgress if the most recent write to a key in the batch is a Merge.
Test Plan: more tests
Reviewers: sdong, yhchiang, rven, igor
Reviewed By: igor
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D47817
Summary: Transactional SingleDelete is needed for MyRocks. Note: This diff requires D47529.
Test Plan: Added some new tests in this diff as well as more tests added in D47529
Reviewers: rven, sdong, igor, yhchiang
Reviewed By: yhchiang
Subscribers: yoshinorim, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D47535
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: Added funtions to fetch the number of locked keys in a transaction, the number of pending puts/merge/deletes, and the elapsed time
Test Plan: unit tests
Reviewers: yoshinorim, jkedgar, rven, sdong, yhchiang, igor
Reviewed By: igor
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D45417
Summary: MyRocks wants to be able to change the lock timeout of a transaction that has already started. Expose existing SetLockTimeout function to users.
Test Plan: unit test
Reviewers: spetrunia, rven, sdong, yhchiang, igor
Reviewed By: igor
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D45987
Summary: Provide a way to specify a detailed static error message for a Status without incurring a memcpy. Let me know what people think of this approach.
Test Plan: added simple test
Reviewers: igor, yhchiang, rven, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D44259
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
Wanning Jiang