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

Online DDL: ANALYZE the shadow table before cut-over #17201

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 11, 2024

Conversation

shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor

Description

See story in #17200

Online DDL will now run ANALYZE TABLE on the shadow table before cut-over. Note:

  • We only run ANALYZE once, on the first cut-over. Successive cut-overs (in case of continued timeouts) will not run ANALYZE TABLE.
  • We use the cut-over threshold as lock_wait_timeout to prevent excessive locking.
  • ANALYZE is normally fast, but if runs long, it could cause vreplication lag. We therefore run this before locking the tables, and just before creating the sentry table, after which we issue waitForPos.
  • ANALYZE is best effort. If it fails (timeout, likely) we take note but proceed with cut-over.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #17200

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>
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 Nov 10, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Nov 10, 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 Nov 10, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Nov 10, 2024
@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 Nov 10, 2024
@@ -967,13 +999,13 @@ func (e *Executor) cutOverVReplMigration(ctx context.Context, s *VReplStream, sh
if err != nil {
return vterrors.Wrapf(err, "failed getting locking connection")
}
defer lockConn.Recycle()
Copy link
Contributor Author

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach Nov 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is an unrelated change that I spotted, and I will also make a separate PR just for this change.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reference: #17207

@GrahamCampbell
Copy link
Contributor

This is a great idea. We've sometimes had to run this manually after cut-over to correct query plans.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 10, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 34 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.33%. Comparing base (0403d54) to head (4415bde).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/vt/vttablet/onlineddl/executor.go 0.00% 34 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17201      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.34%   67.33%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1570     1570              
  Lines      252734   252763      +29     
==========================================
- Hits       170204   170200       -4     
- Misses      82530    82563      +33     

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

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.

LGTM! Had the one Wrapf nit and then the larger question about the naming, since I think shadow would be better than vrepl since I didn't see anything vreplication specific. No?

@@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS schema_migrations
`is_immediate_operation` tinyint unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
`reviewed_timestamp` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`ready_to_complete_timestamp` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
`vrepl_analyzed_timestamp` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

On the naming, this isn't shadow_analyzed_timestamp? I didn't think that this was specific to the vreplication target table.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changed to shadow_analyzed_timestamp.

preparation := func() error {
preparationsConn, err := e.pool.Get(ctx, nil)
if err != nil {
return vterrors.Wrapf(err, "failed getting preparation connection")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This should just be Wrap. The linters are starting to get more strict about this. Same thing for the other instances of Wrapf w/o any format options/params. I know it's nitty, but otherwise people with newer linters locally will encounter the warnings/errors and have to fix them (e.g. simply when merging in the latest from main).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed (in two places).

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>
…ale/vitess into onlineddl-cutover-analyze-table

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
@deepthi deepthi merged commit 221a663 into vitessio:main Nov 11, 2024
98 checks passed
@deepthi deepthi deleted the onlineddl-cutover-analyze-table branch November 11, 2024 18:11
rvrangel pushed a commit to rvrangel/vitess that referenced this pull request Nov 21, 2024
Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <rrangel@slack-corp.com>
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
4 participants