This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 14, 2024. It is now read-only.
[Named min timestamp leases] Modify client API #7386
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
ergo14
changed the title
jkozlowski
reviewed
Oct 21, 2024
| @@ -115,15 +117,17 @@ default List<StartIdentifiedAtlasDbTransactionResponse> startIdentifiedAtlasDbTr | |||
|
|
|||
| /** | |||
| * Acquires a lease on a named timestamp. The lease is taken out with a new fresh timestamp. | |||
jkozlowski
reviewed
Oct 21, 2024
| */ | ||
| @RestrictedApi( | ||
| explanation = | ||
| "This method is for internal Atlas and internal library use only. Clients MUST NOT use it unless" | ||
| + " given explicit approval. Mis-use can result in SEVERE DATA CORRUPTION and the API contract" | ||
| + " is subject to change at any time.", | ||
| allowlistAnnotations = ReviewedRestrictedApiUsage.class) | ||
| AcquireNamedMinTimestampLeaseResult acquireNamedMinTimestampLease(String timestampName, int numFreshTimestamps); | ||
| TimestampLeaseResults acquireTimestampLeases(Map<TimestampLeaseName, Integer> requests); | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Returns the smallest leased timestamp in the associated named collection at the time of the call. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"the smallest leased timestamps for the reqeuested names?
jkozlowski
approved these changes
Oct 21, 2024
ergo14
force-pushed
the
aa-nmtl-modify-client-api
branch
from
4bdb410 to
6fcacd8
Compare
ergo14
changed the title
jeremyk-91
reviewed
Oct 29, 2024
| * Acquires a lease on named timestamps. The lease is taken out with a new fresh timestamp. | ||
| * The timestamps supplied are fresh timestamps obtained strictly after the lease is taken out. | ||
| * The supplier returns exactly the number of timestamps requested and throws on any additional | ||
| * interactions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A general philosophy question: I think this specification should exist on the underlying TimestampLeaseResult object? Not clear where there's a supplier here (or, if we change the implementation of TimestampLeaseResults for some reason, then there may not be an actual supplier.)
| .get(); | ||
|
|
||
| // it is crucial that the timestamps acquired are AFTER the timestamp used for locking |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes - would it make sense to leave a brief note as to why?
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
General
Before this PR:
The expected usage will be that upstream code will aggregate all the acquiring required on a transaction level and submit them. At that point, we would like to have a single lock for all the things acquired.
After this PR:
Adapt client API to expectations upstream and new timelock API
==COMMIT_MSG==
==COMMIT_MSG==
Priority:
P1
Concerns / possible downsides (what feedback would you like?):
Is documentation needed?:
Compatibility
Does this PR create any API breaks (e.g. at the Java or HTTP layers) - if so, do we have compatibility?:
Internal
Does this PR change the persisted format of any data - if so, do we have forward and backward compatibility?:
No
The code in this PR may be part of a blue-green deploy. Can upgrades from previous versions safely coexist? (Consider restarts of blue or green nodes.):
Yes
Does this PR rely on statements being true about other products at a deployment - if so, do we have correct product dependencies on these products (or other ways of verifying that these statements are true)?:
No
Does this PR need a schema migration?
No
Testing and Correctness
What, if any, assumptions are made about the current state of the world? If they change over time, how will we find out?:
N/A
What was existing testing like? What have you done to improve it?:
N/A
If this PR contains complex concurrent or asynchronous code, is it correct? The onus is on the PR writer to demonstrate this.:
N/A
If this PR involves acquiring locks or other shared resources, how do we ensure that these are always released?:
N/A
Execution
How would I tell this PR works in production? (Metrics, logs, etc.):
No op
Has the safety of all log arguments been decided correctly?:
Yes
Will this change significantly affect our spending on metrics or logs?:
No
How would I tell that this PR does not work in production? (monitors, etc.):
No op
If this PR does not work as expected, how do I fix that state? Would rollback be straightforward?:
Rollback
If the above plan is more complex than “recall and rollback”, please tag the support PoC here (if it is the end of the week, tag both the current and next PoC):
Scale
Would this PR be expected to pose a risk at scale? Think of the shopping product at our largest stack.:
No
Would this PR be expected to perform a large number of database calls, and/or expensive database calls (e.g., row range scans, concurrent CAS)?:
No
Would this PR ever, with time and scale, become the wrong thing to do - and if so, how would we know that we need to do something differently?:
Development Process
Where should we start reviewing?:
If this PR is in excess of 500 lines excluding versions lock-files, why does it not make sense to split it?:
Please tag any other people who should be aware of this PR:
@jeremyk-91
@raiju