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

VTGate MoveTables Buffering: Fix panic when buffering is disabled #16922

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 11, 2024

Conversation

rohit-nayak-ps
Copy link
Contributor

Description

When buffering is turned off in vtgate there is a possibility of a panic when a query is retried, because of this code
timeout := e.resolver.scatterConn.gateway.buffer.GetConfig().MaxFailoverDuration / (MaxBufferingRetries - 1) introduced here: https://github.com/vitessio/vitess/pull/15701/files#diff-19aa815da9f21f65b55cc865090e2cefa77af98b30b134936853f7763898d255R107 in v20.0.

This PR uses the default timeout of 30 seconds, used earlier, if buffering is turned off.

Related Issue(s)

#16858

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Oct 9, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Oct 9, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Oct 9, 2024
@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Oct 9, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 9, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 69.42%. Comparing base (f40e076) to head (67ee014).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/vt/vtgate/plan_execute.go 66.66% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16922      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   69.43%   69.42%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1570     1570              
  Lines      203812   203923     +111     
==========================================
+ Hits       141517   141571      +54     
- Misses      62295    62352      +57     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Comment on lines 107 to 111
timeout := e.resolver.scatterConn.gateway.buffer.GetConfig().MaxFailoverDuration / (MaxBufferingRetries - 1)
timeout := 30 * time.Second
if e.resolver.scatterConn.gateway.buffer != nil {
timeout = e.resolver.scatterConn.gateway.buffer.GetConfig().MaxFailoverDuration / (MaxBufferingRetries - 1)
}
if waitForNewerVSchema(ctx, e, lastVSchemaCreated, timeout) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's add a unit test for the change.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! I was going to suggest the same thing though ^^ 🙂 If it's very difficult to do for some reason then we can put that off.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@harshit-gangal, where would I do that now and what should the unit test check for? I don't see any obvious framework to add a test for newExecute and there is no plan_execute_test.go

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It can be placed in executor_test.
Let me see if I can add it

Signed-off-by: Rohit Nayak <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps merged commit f0062e6 into vitessio:main Oct 11, 2024
98 checks passed
@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps deleted the rohit/denied-table-panic branch October 11, 2024 07:38
vitess-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2024
…6922)

Signed-off-by: Rohit Nayak <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
vitess-bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2024
…6922)

Signed-off-by: Rohit Nayak <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
frouioui pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2024
…is disabled (#16922) (#16935)

Signed-off-by: Rohit Nayak <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: vitess-bot[bot] <108069721+vitess-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
rohit-nayak-ps pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2024
…is disabled (#16922) (#16936)

Signed-off-by: Rohit Nayak <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: vitess-bot[bot] <108069721+vitess-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants