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

Improved Compatibility Around LAST_INSERT_ID - evalengine #17409

Open
wants to merge 23 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

systay
Copy link
Collaborator

@systay systay commented Dec 19, 2024

Description

This PR improves last_insert_id(x) behavior to align more closely with MySQL in various scenarios.

Here we are adding capability for the evalengine to handle last_insert_id(x) queries in vtgate. This enables running dual only queries without having to send it down to mysql, such as:

select last_insert_id(123);

It also enables handling situations where the value is calculated in the vtgate and not something MySQL sends to us, like aggregation across shards:

select last_insert_id(count(*)) from user where foo = 'bar'

This PR contains commits from #17408

Related Issue(s)

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

systay and others added 20 commits December 19, 2024 07:06
Signed-off-by: Andres Taylor <[email protected]>
…nish early when limiting row count

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

vitess-bot bot commented Dec 19, 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.

@systay systay requested a review from vmg as a code owner December 19, 2024 06:22
@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 Dec 19, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Dec 19, 2024
@systay systay added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Evalengine changes to the evaluation engine and 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 Dec 19, 2024
@systay systay force-pushed the last-insert-id-step2 branch from 6fcd9e1 to b6295b7 Compare December 19, 2024 06:24
@systay systay force-pushed the last-insert-id-step2 branch from b6295b7 to c7364f5 Compare December 19, 2024 07:25
@systay systay force-pushed the last-insert-id-step2 branch from c7364f5 to e133d2f Compare December 19, 2024 07:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Evalengine changes to the evaluation engine 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