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

schemadiff: using MySQL capabilities to analyze a SchemaDiff and whether changes are applicable instantly/immediately. #14878

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jan 4, 2024

Conversation

shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach commented Jan 3, 2024

Description

See feature description in #14877. schemadiff, together with CapableOf & FlavorCapability, is able to answer:

  • Whether a particular ALTER TABLE on a given table schema is eligible for ALGORITHM=INSTANT
  • Whether an entire SchemaDiff (the diff of two schemas) result is applicable immediately/instantly, meaning all diffs are either trivially immediate (CREATE TABLE, ALTER VIEW, etc.) or are eligible for ALGORITHM=INSTANT.

This is a first, and isolated, step in a longer change, where:

  • Based on AlterTableAlgorithmStrategy hint, we could auto-apply ALGORITHM=INSTANT to alter table statements.
  • onlineddl/analysis.go, which has overlapping functionality, can then defer to schemadiff.

To reduce schemadiff's package dependency, this PR also refactors CapableOf & FlavorCapability out of go/vt/mysql and into go/vt/mysql/capabilities.

Related Issue(s)

#14877

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

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
…ff is capable of INSTANT algorithm

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Online DDL Online DDL (vitess/native/gh-ost/pt-osc) labels Jan 3, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jan 3, 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 Jan 3, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Jan 3, 2024
Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach 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 Jan 3, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@mattlord mattlord left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good! I had one functionality related question with the rest being minor comments/suggestions/questions.

}
}
if strings.EqualFold(col.Type.Type, "set") {
if (len(col.Type.EnumValues)+7)/8 != (len(opt.NewColDefinition.Type.EnumValues)+7)/8 {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't need to perform any math if we're checking for equality here, do we? i.e., I don't think we need to do more than:

if len(col.Type.EnumValues) != len(opt.NewColDefinition.Type.EnumValues) {

Maybe that's not what we want to do though either? I'm assuming it's fine if the new value is less than the existing one. I would think we only care if the new value would be larger / require more space:

if (len(col.Type.EnumValues)+7)/8 < (len(opt.NewColDefinition.Type.EnumValues)+7)/8 {

Copy link
Contributor Author

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach Jan 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unfortunately both assumptions are incorrect. The condition for allowing ALGORITHM=INSTANT is that the storage space for the SET/ENUM value is identical.

Here's how storage for 6 values is the same as the storage for 7 values, and INSTANT is allowed:

> create table t(id int, c1 set('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'), primary key(id));
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec)

> alter table t modify column c1 set('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'), algorithm=instant;
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec)
Records: 0  Duplicates: 0  Warnings: 0

Here's how the storage for 9 values (2 bytes) reduced to 8 values (1 byte) disables INSTANT:

> create table t(id int, c1 set('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i'), primary key(id));
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec)

> alter table t modify column c1 set('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h'), algorithm=instant;
ERROR 1846 (0A000): ALGORITHM=INSTANT is not supported. Reason: Need to rebuild the table to change column type. Try ALGORITHM=COPY/INPLACE.

for _, diff := range d.UnorderedDiffs() {
capable, err := diffCapableOfInstantDDL(diff, capableOf)
if err != nil {
errs = errors.Join(errs, err)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just noting that this uses wrapping (which generally means the outer error was caused by the inner). I'm not sure if that's what we want 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.

To the best of my knowledge, errors.Join is not doing wrapping. It implements a slices of err objects, most of which are inaccessible unless you explicitly cast your err to an Unwrap() []error interface, like so:

type Wrapped interface {
Unwrap() []error
}
// Unwrap unwraps an error created by errors.Join() in Go 1.20, into its components
func Unwrap(err error) []error {
if err == nil {
return nil
}
if u, ok := err.(Wrapped); ok {
return u.Unwrap()
}
return nil
}

Concatenating errors is a paradigm we use throughout schemadiff, with the explicit intention of returning as much information about diff/problems in one go.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

BTW I realize the above code reads Wrapped and Unwrap, but I think it's not in the same way you meant it (meaning it's not hierarchical parent->child, but flat). Possibly we should rename those function and type.

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
@mattlord
Copy link
Contributor

mattlord commented Jan 3, 2024

Note that if this fixes #14877 -- meaning that it should be closed when this is merged -- then we need to add the Fixes keyword in the Related Issue(s) line. I would have added it myself but not 100% sure that's what you wanted.

@shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note that if this fixes #14877

It does not fully fix it. I'll have a followup PR for that!

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach merged commit 98639a7 into vitessio:main Jan 4, 2024
99 checks passed
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach deleted the schemadiff-capabilities branch January 4, 2024 05:40
@shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor Author

Followup PR in #14883

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Online DDL Online DDL (vitess/native/gh-ost/pt-osc) Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants