Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Update documents for cross-partition scan and import feature #1301
Update documents for cross-partition scan and import feature #1301
Changes from 1 commit
3bf7549
6726530
226b69f
e3dd00d
148d9e2
de406a2
67033d9
f026a7e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have added
Map<String, String> options
as 3rd argument to this method:And we didn't add the argument for the
3
branch. To avoid diverging this doc betweenmaster
and3
, so we should probably apply the same change for the3
branch.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch, thank you! Fixed in e3dd00d.
I'm OK to use
admin.importTable("ns", "tbl", options)
even in v3.x, but might be confusing for users. If we can just apply it without any other concerns, I can handle it since it's not a big diverge. Should I or not?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, the
importTable()
method was already introduced in 3.10, but it was treated as an experiment feature. Therefore, I think we can also add theoptions
argument to the3
branch.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ahh, right. Got it. Thank you!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed in e3dd00d.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The expression
it could make the isolation level lower
sounds a bit unclear to me.BTW, sorry, I don't fully remember the discussion we had before.
So, we decided to only warn in case users use the cross-partition scan with serializable isolation for backward compatibility instead of throwing a runtime exception, don't we?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the comment. Fixed in e3dd00d.
At least, we didn't choose to completely disable the cross-partition scan with serializable isolation in v4.0. Disabling it is one idea, but I think it might be useful in some cases regardless of backward compatibility; e.g., users want to basically run transactions in a serializable manner but sometimes run read-only cross-partition scans without changing the setting.
@brfrn169 Do you have any idea?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, thank you! So, for now, we need to enable it in 3.x for backward-compatibility, and we haven't decided to do so in 4.x (we need to think what we should do for 4.x). Is my understanding correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Almost, yes. My understanding is that we will keep warning it as the same as v3.x unless we make a decision to stop the feature in v4.x explicitly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed in 6726530.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After adding the holistic migration guide, I will add a reference for it around here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ditto. Do we observe
null
, some value, or an error?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good question again. The 2GB limit is due to Java's byte array limits. I don't test it, but I guess the Oracle JDBC driver throws an
SQLException
. Or, we might see an OOM error if the heap size is not correctly configured. Apart from that, we might be able to handle such large objects better by using JDBCBlob getBlob(...)
and offset-based access instead ofbyte[] getBytes(...)
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I see. I understood that it depends on Java side.
Thank you!