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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

support transaction isolation modification through reserved connection system settings #11987

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 13, 2023
Merged

support transaction isolation modification through reserved connection system settings #11987

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 13, 2023

Conversation

harshit-gangal
Copy link
Member

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal commented Dec 19, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Description

This PR moves the transaction isolation system variables (transaction_isolation or set transaction isolation level) from vitess aware to reserved connection.
Earlier it used to only work with transactions. With this change, support will be added for read queries.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Query Serving labels Dec 19, 2022
@vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Dec 19, 2022 •
edited by GuptaManan100
Loading

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • If this is a change that users need to know about, please apply the release notes (needs details) label so that merging is blocked unless the summary release notes document is included.
  • If a test is added or modified, there should be a documentation on top of the test to explain what the expected behavior is what the test does.

If a new flag is being introduced:

  • Is it really necessary to add this flag?
  • Flag names should be clear and intuitive (as far as possible)
  • Help text should be descriptive.
  • Flag names should use dashes (-) as word separators rather than underscores (_).

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow should be required, the maintainer team should be notified.

Bug fixes

  • There should be at least one unit or end-to-end test.
  • The Pull Request description should include a link to an issue that describes the bug.

Non-trivial changes

  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.

New/Existing features

  • Should be documented, either by modifying the existing documentation or creating new documentation.
  • New features should have a link to a feature request issue or an RFC that documents the use cases, corner cases and test cases.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from VTop, if used there.

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal changed the title feat: support transaction isolation through reserved connection support transaction isolation modification through reserved connection system settings Dec 19, 2022
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal marked this pull request as ready for review December 19, 2022 07:36
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) and removed Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) labels Dec 19, 2022
GuptaManan100
GuptaManan100 reviewed Dec 19, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Everything else looks good, but isn't this like a breaking change? Previously setting the transaction isolation would only apply to the next query, but now it applies to the session, if I understand correctly. Shouldn't this be added to the release notes?

go/vt/vtgate/safe_session.go
@@ -597,10 +597,10 @@ func (session *SafeSession) SetPreQueries() []string {
first := true
for _, k := range keys {
if first {
preQuery.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("set @@%s = %s", k, sysVars[k]))
preQuery.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("set %s = %s", k, sysVars[k]))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is this change needed?

Copy link
Member Author

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal Dec 19, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TLDR; previously it was broken.

@@ without any scope represents session scope. Only for the case of transaction_isolation it means the next transaction. This gets applied only once.
With the implementation of settings pool these settings will not be applied again and the connection will be reused, which means the next query the connection will see, will have the session level isolation level and not the next transaction isolation level.
So, the user expectation will turn out to be wrong.

The RFC already states that the next transaction isolation statements will be converted to the session level setting.

Now the other part of it, If the user would have set the transaction_isolation at the session level. This will get only applied for the next transaction in case of reserved connection.

deepthi
deepthi approved these changes Jan 9, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@deepthi deepthi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One small suggestion, rest LGTM

go/test/endtoend/vtgate/reservedconn/sysvar_test.go

// setting to different value.
utils.Exec(t, conn, "set @@transaction_isolation = 'read-committed'")
utils.AssertMatches(t, conn, "select @@transaction_isolation", `[[VARCHAR("READ-COMMITTED")]]`)
utils.AssertMatches(t, conn, "select @@transaction_isolation", `[[VARCHAR("read-committed")]]`)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are some values uppercase and some lowercase?
Line 437 - REPEATABLE-READ. But everything else is lowercase.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks like it may be an artifact of how the test input is provided. To avoid confusion, my suggestion is to make them all uniform.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I will raise a separate PR to handle it.

GuptaManan100
GuptaManan100 approved these changes Jan 10, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't have any other comments than the ones already answered.

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal merged commit a5a14f1 into vitessio:main Jan 13, 2023
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal deleted the tx-isolation branch January 13, 2023 04:08
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2023
Merged
3 tasks
dbussink pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2023
@harshit-gangal
Cherry Pick: Add support for transaction isolation level (#1493)
544d72f 
* add support for transaction isolation level and make it vitess aware setting (#11673)

* feat: add support for tx_isolation and make it vitess aware setting

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* feat: rewrite tx_isolation and transaction_isolation in select query

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* feat: added support for set session transaction isolation level <value>

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* feat: add nextTxScope for transaction variables

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* refactor: use constants over magic literals

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* kept old support for next transaction scope transaction system variables

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* test: added e2e test

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* Fix: return allowed transaction isolation level value on select query (#11804)

* test: added e2e test

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* test: added unit test

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* fix: transaction_isolation to return connection default when not set

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* test: addressed review comments

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* feat: support transaction isolation through reserved connection (#11987)

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* store transaction isolation level in upper case (#12099)

* store transaction isolation level in upper case

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

* store system variables in the case as provided in StorageCase type

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal mentioned this pull request Feb 8, 2023
Merged
3 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 approved these changes

@deepthi deepthi deepthi approved these changes

@systay systay Awaiting requested review from systay systay is a code owner

@frouioui frouioui Awaiting requested review from frouioui frouioui is a code owner

@arthurschreiber arthurschreiber Awaiting requested review from arthurschreiber arthurschreiber is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: Query Serving Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

set transaction isolation level extention to read queries
3 participants
@harshit-gangal @deepthi @GuptaManan100