gc_worker: Skip TiFlash nodes when doing UnsafeDestroyRange (#15505) #15761
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
sticnarf
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2020
|
/merge |
sre-bot
added
the
status/can-merge
|
/run-all-tests |
|
@MyonKeminta merge failed. |
|
/merge |
|
Sorry @MyonKeminta, you don't have permission to trigger auto merge event on this branch. |
|
/merge |
|
Your auto merge job has been accepted, waiting for 16139 |
|
/run-all-tests |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What problem does this PR solve?
Problem Summary: GC delete range phase cannot successfully run when there are TiFlash nodes in the cluster.
What is changed and how it works?
Cherry-picks #15505
What's Changed: Filters out TiFlash nodes when sending UnsafeDestroyRange, according to the store's "engine" label. But note that it's possible to be broken when the label is incorrectly configured (see tikv/tikv#7153).
How it Works: For a TiFlash node, it uses other approach to delete dropped tables, so it's safe to skip sending UnsafeDestroyRange requests; it has only learner peers and their data must exist in TiKV, so it's safe to skip physical resolve locks for it. So in theory GC is still correct.
Check List
Tests
Side effects
Release note
(I'm not sure if the release note is needed since it's related to TiFlash)