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

release-22.2: sql: create new slice when removing backreference items #97787

Merged

Conversation

chengxiong-ruan
Copy link
Contributor

Backport 1/1 commits from #97631.

/cc @cockroachdb/release


Fixes: #97546
Fixes: #96368

Previously we reused the underlying slots of the DependedOnBy slice when removing items from it. This is problematic because we normally have to iterate the same slice to figure out what to drop. Iterating on a slice which is rewritten can be problematic unless we always know how to smartly move the cursor backward. This commit changes it to just create a new slice to avoid the hazzard.

Release note: None.
Release justification: bug fixes.

@chengxiong-ruan chengxiong-ruan requested a review from a team February 28, 2023 15:34
@blathers-crl
Copy link

blathers-crl bot commented Feb 28, 2023

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

  • Patches should only be created for serious issues or test-only changes.
  • Patches should not break backwards-compatibility.
  • Patches should change as little code as possible.
  • Patches should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
  • Patches should not add new functionality.
  • Patches must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.
If some of the basic criteria cannot be satisfied, ensure that the exceptional criteria are satisfied within.
  • There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
  • The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
  • New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters.
  • The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.

Add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this backport.

Some other things to consider:

  • What did we do to ensure that a user that doesn’t know & care about this backport, has no idea that it happened?
  • Will this work in a cluster of mixed patch versions? Did we test that?
  • If a user upgrades a patch version, uses this feature, and then downgrades, what happens?

@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

@chengxiong-ruan chengxiong-ruan force-pushed the backport22.2-97631 branch 6 times, most recently from ad5571c to 2429a72 Compare February 28, 2023 19:58
Fixes: cockroachdb#97546
Fixes: cockroachdb#96368

We are reusing the underlying slots of the `DependedOnBy`
slice when removing items from it. This is problematic because
we normally have to iterate the same slice to figure out what
to drop. Iterating on a slice which is rewritten can be problematic
unless we always know how to smartly move the cursor backward.
This commit remove such kind of hazard by collecting descriptor
IDs to drop before actually dropping everything.

Releaste note (sql change): This commit fixes two bugs prevent
users from doing `DROP COLUMN CASCADE` and `DROP INDEX CASCADE`
when dependecies on the Table from Views and Functions get complex.
They all happened When a table is referenced multiple times in
more than one Views and Functions.

Release note: None.
@chengxiong-ruan chengxiong-ruan requested a review from a team February 28, 2023 20:56
@chengxiong-ruan chengxiong-ruan requested a review from a team as a code owner February 28, 2023 20:56
@chengxiong-ruan chengxiong-ruan merged commit 96cbe37 into cockroachdb:release-22.2 Mar 1, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants