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

session: refactor non-transactional DML to make it ready for more DML types #38197

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Oct 19, 2022

Conversation

ekexium
Copy link
Contributor

@ekexium ekexium commented Sep 27, 2022

Signed-off-by: ekexium [email protected]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: ref #33485

Problem Summary:

To support update and insert into select later, first refactor the existing code specific to delete.

What is changed and how it works?

  1. Refactor
  2. A proof-of-concept implementation of non-transactional update to show the refactor works.

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

Side effects

  • Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
  • Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
  • Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

  • Affects user behaviors
  • Contains syntax changes
  • Contains variable changes
  • Contains experimental features
  • Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

ti-chi-bot commented Sep 27, 2022

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • sticnarf
  • you06

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.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 27, 2022
@ekexium ekexium changed the title session: refactor non-transactional DML to make it ready for more DML types [WIP] session: refactor non-transactional DML to make it ready for more DML types Sep 27, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Sep 27, 2022
@ekexium ekexium force-pushed the refactor-nt branch 2 times, most recently from 68cf5a2 to 06713d6 Compare September 27, 2022 08:49
@ekexium ekexium changed the title [WIP] session: refactor non-transactional DML to make it ready for more DML types session: refactor non-transactional DML to make it ready for more DML types Sep 27, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Sep 27, 2022
@ekexium ekexium requested a review from you06 September 28, 2022 04:39
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 28, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Sep 28, 2022
parser/parser.y Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@sticnarf
Copy link
Contributor

Emm, is it really just a refactoring? I think it supports UPDATE for non-transaction DML, right?

@ekexium
Copy link
Contributor Author

ekexium commented Sep 28, 2022

Emm, is it really just a refactoring? I think it supports UPDATE for non-transaction DML, right?

Yes. It's not a full implementation though. I'd prefer merge the part first so that following work on UPDATE and INSERT could be parallelized, hopefully.

Signed-off-by: ekexium <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@sticnarf sticnarf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Please fix the conflicts.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 13, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 13, 2022
@ekexium
Copy link
Contributor Author

ekexium commented Oct 13, 2022

/run-build
/run-mysql-test

Copy link
Contributor

@you06 you06 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

rest LGTM

tk.MustQuery(fmt.Sprintf("batch on a limit %d update t set b = b * 2", c.batchSize)).Check(testkit.Rows(fmt.Sprintf("%d all succeeded", (c.tableSize+c.batchSize-1)/c.batchSize)))
tk.MustQuery("select coalesce(sum(b), 0) from t").Check(testkit.Rows(fmt.Sprintf("%d", (c.tableSize-1)*c.tableSize*2)))
tk.MustQuery(fmt.Sprintf("batch on a limit %d delete from t", c.batchSize)).Check(testkit.Rows(fmt.Sprintf("%d all succeeded", (c.tableSize+c.batchSize-1)/c.batchSize)))
tk.MustQuery("select count(*) from t").Check(testkit.Rows("0"))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Make a line break here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry I didn't get it. What is a line break for?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The lines here are too long(not fully displayed on my screen).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK that makes sense. I used to turn on the auto hard wrap. But it always changes existing code that I'd rather not touch in a PR. Sadly we don't have a hard standard for this :(

session/nontransactional.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: ekexium <[email protected]>
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 18, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot removed the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 18, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label Oct 19, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels Oct 19, 2022
@sticnarf
Copy link
Contributor

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

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

Commit hash: 1e1c440

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Oct 19, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. label Oct 19, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot removed status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. needs-rebase Indicates a PR cannot be merged because it has merge conflicts with HEAD. labels Oct 19, 2022
@sticnarf
Copy link
Contributor

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

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

Commit hash: 438fa3d

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Oct 19, 2022
@sticnarf
Copy link
Contributor

/run-check_dev_2

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot merged commit e48f357 into pingcap:master Oct 19, 2022
@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Oct 19, 2022

TiDB MergeCI notify

✅ Well Done! New fixed [1] after this pr merged.

CI Name Result Duration Compare with Parent commit
idc-jenkins-ci/integration-cdc-test 🔴 failed 2, success 36, total 38 31 min Existing failure
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/integration-ddl-test ✅ all 6 tests passed 27 min Fixed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/integration-common-test 🟢 all 17 tests passed 12 min Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/common-test 🟢 all 11 tests passed 9 min 36 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/tics-test 🟢 all 1 tests passed 6 min 56 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/sqllogic-test-2 🟢 all 28 tests passed 5 min 4 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/sqllogic-test-1 🟢 all 26 tests passed 4 min 5 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/mybatis-test 🟢 all 1 tests passed 3 min 5 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/integration-compatibility-test 🟢 all 1 tests passed 2 min 46 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/plugin-test 🟢 build success, plugin test success 4min Existing passed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/XXL Denotes a PR that changes 1000+ lines, ignoring generated files. status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants