Kristian, The improved patch is here for more comments if you will have. Cheers, Andrei
Hello.
Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@knielsen-hq.org> writes:
andrei.elkin@pp.inet.fi writes:
First the parent errros out goes to `finish_event_group()' but it's possible it does not have yet the child in its `subsequent_commits_list'
So I understood so far that the retrying worker needs to check `stop_on_error_sub_id' that effectively reflects the error status.
Agree, the basic fix looks correct, of checking stop_on_error_sub_id.
And yes, there are probably cases where after stop_on_error_sub_id is set, earlier transactions are aborted early without setting up the subsequent-transaction-chain, so that wait_for_prior_commit cannot be relied upon, and stop_on_error_sub_id must be checked.
So again, nice catch, this would be nasty to try and debug from errors seen only in a user's setup.
Thanks!
I am only wondering about two points, if there is something that needs to be adjusted in the patch around the error exit after stop_on_error_sub_id, or perhaps something else not yet understood going on:
Number one:
+ if (!rgi->worker_error) + rgi->worker_error= 1; + }
I would have expected an abort (goto err) here (or well just below, after unlocking the mutex). Is this not needed, and if so, why not?
I left it to upcoming (in 2 lines) THD::wait_for_prior_commit(). It takes care to check out `worker_error'.
int wait_for_prior_commit(THD *thd) { /* Quick inline check, to avoid function call and locking in the common case where no wakeup is registered, or a registered wait was already signalled. */ if (waitee) return wait_for_prior_commit2(thd); else { if (wakeup_error) my_error(ER_PRIOR_COMMIT_FAILED, MYF(0)); return wakeup_error; } }
No waitee is guaranteed as this worker skipped `register_wait_for_prior_event_group_commit()'.
Sorry, I don't get it. wait_for_prior_commit() checks thd->wait_for_commit_ptr->wakeup_error, not rgi->worker_error? wait_for_prior_commit() doesn't have access to rgi.
Thanks for this check. Indeed, I did not fully recover from earlier confusion between the two (too much closely named (in some metrics) identifier they are!).
thd->wait_for_commit_ptr->wakeup_error := 1
is meant even though the test passes (must be thanks to rgi->worker_error later checks).
list. And that's how the parent's `wakeup_error' never reaches the child. This is certainly the case when a child retries after a temp failure. In the test condition the child's `worker_error' is zero, but if a non-zero case `worker_error' gets cleared anyway through `unregister_wait_for_prior_commit()'.
Isn't there some confusion here? Between "wakeup_error", which sits inside struct wait_for_commit, and indicates that a prior event group failed. And "worker_error" in rpl_group_info, which indicates that _this_ event group failed, and is used to remember to do proper error cleanup inside the worker thread?
To fix.
Number two:
You must mean the retrying worker stops doing it optimistically. I saw that. But I saw through logs that at times a worker could re-try about the number of worker pool size. Perhaps this unrestrained behaviour was caused by lack of a check of the current patch.
Yes, that is what I mean. And yes, the underlying bug with missing check on stop_on_error_sub_id might have caused this as a secondary effect.
My point was just that users should not need to set a high retry count just from using parallel replication (remember, several thousand worker threads have been used with success on production data). So if this is necessary in a test case, it might indicate a problem with the code...
True. I am making changes to submit a newer version very soon.
Thanks for your help!
Andrei
- Kristian.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp