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

Add backward compatibility check in stress test #27928

Merged
merged 62 commits into from
Mar 21, 2022

Conversation

Avogar
Copy link
Member

@Avogar Avogar commented Aug 20, 2021

I hereby agree to the terms of the CLA available at: https://yandex.ru/legal/cla/?lang=en

Changelog category (leave one):

  • Build/Testing/Packaging Improvement

Changelog entry (a user-readable short description of the changes that goes to CHANGELOG.md):
Add backward compatibility check in stress test.
Closes #25088

Detailed description / Documentation draft:
...

@robot-clickhouse robot-clickhouse added the pr-build Pull request with build/testing/packaging improvement label Aug 20, 2021
@Avogar Avogar marked this pull request as draft August 20, 2021 12:18
@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Aug 23, 2021

@mergify update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Aug 23, 2021

Command update: success

Branch has been successfully updated

Hey, I reacted but my real name is @Mergifyio

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Aug 23, 2021

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Aug 23, 2021

Command update: success

Branch has been successfully updated

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Aug 27, 2021

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Aug 27, 2021

Command update: success

Branch has been successfully updated

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Aug 30, 2021

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Aug 30, 2021

Command update: success

Branch has been successfully updated

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Sep 3, 2021

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Sep 3, 2021

Command update: success

Branch has been successfully updated

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Sep 6, 2021

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Sep 6, 2021

Command update: success

Branch has been successfully updated

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Sep 9, 2021

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Sep 9, 2021

Command update: success

Branch has been successfully updated

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Sep 17, 2021

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Sep 17, 2021

Command update: success

Branch has been successfully updated

@Avogar Avogar force-pushed the stress-test branch 2 times, most recently from 9987c45 to 9a60109 Compare September 27, 2021 12:41
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Sep 28, 2021

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Sep 29, 2021

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Sep 29, 2021

Command update: failure

Base branch update has failed
merge conflict between base and head
err-code: A84A3

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Sep 29, 2021

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Sep 29, 2021

Command update: success

Branch has been successfully updated

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Mar 3, 2022

Found new problem:

<Error> DDLWorker(test_5): Error on initialization of test_5: Code: 49. DB::Exception: It's new replica, but database is not empty. (LOGICAL_ERROR)

Investigating.

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Mar 5, 2022

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Mar 5, 2022

update

✅ Branch has been successfully updated

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Mar 5, 2022

New problem was found:

2022.03.05 17:09:23.584385 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: ########################################
2022.03.05 17:09:23.586348 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: (version 22.3.1.1, build id: 7262517FF0840CD4) (from thread 165477) (no query) Received signal Aborted (6)
2022.03.05 17:09:23.587168 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon:
2022.03.05 17:09:23.587644 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: Stack trace: 0x7fca925a703b 0x7fca92586859 0x273206d4 0x2b2aa568 0x2b28f3ce 0x2b28f33d 0x2b28f2e0 0x2b29793d 0x2b297905 0x2b297662 0x7fca9275e609 0x7fca92683163
2022.03.05 17:09:23.588232 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 4. raise @ 0x7fca925a703b in ?
2022.03.05 17:09:23.588418 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 5. abort @ 0x7fca92586859 in ?
2022.03.05 17:09:23.765745 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 6. ./obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/../src/Coordination/KeeperStateManager.cpp:124: ? @ 0x273206d4 in /usr/bin/clickhouse
2022.03.05 17:09:23.948419 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 7. ./obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/../contrib/NuRaft/src/handle_commit.cxx:157: nuraft::raft_server::commit_in_bg() @ 0x2b2aa568 in /usr/bin/clickhouse
2022.03.05 17:09:24.208912 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 8. ./obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/../contrib/libcxx/include/type_traits:3617: decltype(*(std::__1::forward<nuraft::raft_server*&>(fp0)).*fp()) std::__1::__invoke<void (nuraft::raft_server::*&)(), nuraft::raft_server*&, voi
d>(void (nuraft::raft_server::*&)(), nuraft::raft_server*&) @ 0x2b28f3ce in /usr/bin/clickhouse
2022.03.05 17:09:24.466859 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 9. ./obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/../contrib/libcxx/include/functional:2857: std::__1::__bind_return<void (nuraft::raft_server::*)(), std::__1::tuple<nuraft::raft_server*>, std::__1::tuple<>, __is_valid_bind_return<void (n
uraft::raft_server::*)(), std::__1::tuple<nuraft::raft_server*>, std::__1::tuple<> >::value>::type std::__1::__apply_functor<void (nuraft::raft_server::*)(), std::__1::tuple<nuraft::raft_server*>, 0ul, std::__1::tuple<> >(void (nuraft::raft_server::*&)(), std::__1::tuple<nur
aft::raft_server*>&, std::__1::__tuple_indices<0ul>, std::__1::tuple<>&&) @ 0x2b28f33d in /usr/bin/clickhouse
2022.03.05 17:09:24.740276 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 10. ./obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/../contrib/libcxx/include/functional:2890: std::__1::__bind_return<void (nuraft::raft_server::*)(), std::__1::tuple<nuraft::raft_server*>, std::__1::tuple<>, __is_valid_bind_return<void (
nuraft::raft_server::*)(), std::__1::tuple<nuraft::raft_server*>, std::__1::tuple<> >::value>::type std::__1::__bind<void (nuraft::raft_server::*)(), nuraft::raft_server*>::operator()<>() @ 0x2b28f2e0 in /usr/bin/clickhouse
2022.03.05 17:09:25.020073 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 11. ./obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/../contrib/libcxx/include/type_traits:3676: decltype(std::__1::forward<std::__1::__bind<void (nuraft::raft_server::*)(), nuraft::raft_server*> >(fp)()) std::__1::__invoke<std::__1::__bind
<void (nuraft::raft_server::*)(), nuraft::raft_server*> >(std::__1::__bind<void (nuraft::raft_server::*)(), nuraft::raft_server*>&&) @ 0x2b29793d in /usr/bin/clickhouse
2022.03.05 17:09:25.296354 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 12. ./obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/../contrib/libcxx/include/thread:281: void std::__1::__thread_execute<std::__1::unique_ptr<std::__1::__thread_struct, std::__1::default_delete<std::__1::__thread_struct> >, std::__1::__bi
nd<void (nuraft::raft_server::*)(), nuraft::raft_server*> >(std::__1::tuple<std::__1::unique_ptr<std::__1::__thread_struct, std::__1::default_delete<std::__1::__thread_struct> >, std::__1::__bind<void (nuraft::raft_server::*)(), nuraft::raft_server*> >&, std::__1::__tuple_in
dices<>) @ 0x2b297905 in /usr/bin/clickhouse
2022.03.05 17:09:25.553137 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 13. ./obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/../contrib/libcxx/include/thread:291: void* std::__1::__thread_proxy<std::__1::tuple<std::__1::unique_ptr<std::__1::__thread_struct, std::__1::default_delete<std::__1::__thread_struct> >,
 std::__1::__bind<void (nuraft::raft_server::*)(), nuraft::raft_server*> > >(void*) @ 0x2b297662 in /usr/bin/clickhouse
2022.03.05 17:09:25.553730 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 14. ? @ 0x7fca9275e609 in ?
2022.03.05 17:09:25.554114 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: 15. clone @ 0x7fca92683163 in ?
2022.03.05 17:09:26.676828 [ 165479 ] {} <Fatal> BaseDaemon: Calculated checksum of the binary: 36D7E04286D7C2622A93B9E8AFAB18E2. There is no information about the reference checksum.
2022.03.05 17:09:26.680519 [ 165479 ] {} <Information> SentryWriter: Not sending crash report
2022.03.05 17:09:43.766270 [ 165252 ] {} <Fatal> Application: Child process was terminated by signal 6.

Will be fixed in #35021

@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Mar 9, 2022

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Mar 9, 2022

update

✅ Branch has been successfully updated

vdimir added a commit to vdimir/ClickHouse that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2022
@Avogar
Copy link
Member Author

Avogar commented Mar 17, 2022

@Mergifyio update

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Mar 17, 2022

update

✅ Branch has been successfully updated

@Avogar Avogar merged commit fbcc27a into ClickHouse:master Mar 21, 2022
Comment on lines +650 to +653
if (fake_drop)
{
if (parsed_query->as<ASTDropQuery>())
return;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does it make sense to replace DROP with TRUNCATE for table engines like Memory or Join to reduce memory usage?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But how we will know which table engine is used by drop query?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

By executing one more query to get table engine or by moving this logic to server (but it's questionable)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense, I will try it (created issue to not forget)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pr-build Pull request with build/testing/packaging improvement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Backward compatibility checks in stress test
7 participants