executor: forbid read from stale query result

[xhebox]

Signed-off-by: xhe [email protected]

What problem does this PR solve?

Refer #25876

Problem Summary: Because the design of planner, select SQL in the view is not preprocess/checked while creating. I mean all the handleTableName are ignored due to inCreateOrDropTable mask.

Stale reads, however, relies on handleTableName to get the needed information. And I did not come up with a solution to only preprocess/check-staleness for the table name in the select part but view name.

The result is that, I can not tell if it is a stale query while executing DDL create view, nor can we tell while executing/optimizing. Not from the preprocess result of the whole SQL. It can be extracted from the as ... part, though.

The check is added in the creation process(DDL) to reduce performance impact. It is added in executor, however, due to cyclic imports between planner and ddl.

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test

Release note

• Forbid creating view from stale query

[nolouch]

lgtm

[ti-chi-bot]

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

• Yisaer
• nolouch

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

[xhebox]

@Yisaer Please merge.

[ichn-hu]

/merge

[ti-chi-bot]

This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge.

Commit hash: 758108e

[ichn-hu]

@xhebox would you add close #25876 in the PR description?

[ti-srebot]

cherry pick to release-5.1 in PR #26200

[xhebox]

@ichn-hu The fix is a non-elegant workaround due to limitations of TiDB code base. It is not closed because we wanted to do some improvements later. But it is hard. What do you prefer? Open a new issue that may exist for a long time, or just change the name of the old issue.

[ichn-hu]

@ichn-hu The fix is a non-elegant workaround due to limitations of TiDB code base. It is not closed because we wanted to do some improvements later. But it is hard. What do you prefer? Open a new issue that may exist for a long time, or just change the name of the old issue.

I am okay with either way, but if we change the name of the old issue, please make it a feature request and remove the type/bug label. Our team is currently in bug jail, so we need to do so, sorry for bringing inconvenience.