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

Generating copy-on-rewrite logic #12135

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 24, 2023
Merged

Generating copy-on-rewrite logic #12135

merged 5 commits into from
Jan 24, 2023

Conversation

systay
Copy link
Collaborator

@systay systay commented Jan 24, 2023

Description

Adds a new syntax tree rewrite utility. It makes it possible to share parts of the syntax tree with the original, so it should decrease memory pressure somewhat during planning. It also traverses the tree only once to do both operations, before we first needed to clone the full tree and only after could we rewrite it.

Additionally, it can report back to the user which nodes got cloned, which makes it possible to copy semantic information between the two trees.

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

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Jan 24, 2023
@vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jan 24, 2023

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.

}
)

func CopyOnRewrite(node SQLNode, pre func(node, parent SQLNode) bool, post func(cursor *CopyOnWriteCursor)) SQLNode {
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

comment

}

// StopTreeWalk aborts the current tree walking. No more nodes will be visited, and the rewriter will exit out early
func (c *CopyOnWriteCursor) StopTreeWalk() {
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we should use a recovered panic here instead of setting a boolean and checking it everywhere

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I thought that recover was a source of performance loss

@systay systay removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Jan 24, 2023
@systay systay marked this pull request as ready for review January 24, 2023 13:40
@systay systay requested a review from vmg January 24, 2023 13:40
Copy link
Collaborator

@vmg vmg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great. I discussed with @systay the unified interface for pre/post and I think this is a great design!

@frouioui frouioui mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2023
3 tasks
Signed-off-by: Andres Taylor <[email protected]>
@systay systay merged commit ca8c233 into vitessio:main Jan 24, 2023
@systay systay deleted the cow branch January 24, 2023 19:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants