fix(server): Fix bugs #797
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
dranikpg
commented
Feb 14, 2023
•
dranikpg
commented
- Fix replica offset
- Remove old tx offset
Signed-off-by: Vladislav Oleshko <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Vladislav Oleshko <[email protected]>
dranikpg
commented
Feb 14, 2023
| util::fibers_ext::Fiber write_fb_{}; | ||
| JournalWriter writer_{this}; | ||
|
|
||
| std::atomic_uint64_t record_cnt_{0}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was not initialized and thus its value was just random
Comment on lines
+90
to
+92
|
|
||
| print(" offset", syncid.decode(), r_offset, m_offset) | ||
| return r_offset == m_offset |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I now print to so we can see whether the replica is deadlocked, just slow or whether they're out of sync at all
Comment on lines
+102
to
+106
| tasks = (asyncio.create_task(check_replica_finished_exec(c, c_master)) for c in waiting_for) | ||
| finished_list = await asyncio.gather(*tasks) | ||
|
|
||
| # Remove clients that finished from waiting list | ||
| waiting_for = [c for (c, finished) in zip(waiting_for, finished_list) if not finished] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And to avoid printing a lot, I now check each time only the remaining replicas, not all
adiholden
reviewed
Feb 14, 2023
| @@ -382,7 +382,6 @@ void EngineShard::PollExecution(const char* context, Transaction* trans) { | |||
| // after trans in the queue, hence it's safe to run trans out of order. | |||
| if (trans && should_run) { | |||
| DCHECK(trans != head); | |||
| DCHECK(!trans->IsMulti()); // multi, global transactions can not be OOO. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did you remove this check now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- it fails on python tests. which is good because
- We added an option to run multi transactions as OOO if at moment of their scheduling, they are exclusive owners of the lock.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because we now support OOO for multi, but this branch was never called with a lot of shards because of low throughput, so I didn't notice it
|
LGTM for c++ fixes. |
adiholden
approved these changes
Feb 14, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.