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

schemadiff: identify a FK sequential execution scenario, and more #14397

Merged

Conversation

shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach commented Oct 31, 2023

Description

In this PR we programmatically identify the following scenario:

  • We diff two schemas
  • We identify one table (child) adds a new foreign key (pointing to a parent).
  • And we identify the parent table adds an appropriate index on the FK referenced columns.
  • And we identify there isn't an already existing index on referenced columns.

In this scenario, the two changes are strictly sequential, and the two migrations will never be able to run concurrently.

UPDATE: we've identified new scenarios, added in this PR. See followup comments.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on the CI
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

…an index over foreign key parent referenced columns

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Query Serving labels Oct 31, 2023
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach requested a review from a team October 31, 2023 06:03
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach requested a review from deepthi as a code owner October 31, 2023 06:03
@vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Oct 31, 2023

Review Checklist

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

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

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

Backward compatibility

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

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Oct 31, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Oct 31, 2023
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach requested a review from a team October 31, 2023 07:43
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request labels Oct 31, 2023
Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
… TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY does, and the dependency resolving logic applies to both in the same way

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <2607934+shlomi-noach@users.noreply.github.com>
@shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor Author

All right, in the couple hours since opening this PR I've found a whole new family of FK-related dependencies. Basically, any CREATE TABLE that has a FOREIGN KEY constraint, introduces a foreign key in the same way that ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY does. And while CREATE TABLE is an immediate operation, some scenarios still require strict sequential execution. Updated the code and the tests.

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach changed the title schemadiff: identify a FK sequential execution scenario schemadiff: identify a FK sequential execution scenario, and more Oct 31, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@notfelineit notfelineit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach merged commit 54eedf8 into vitessio:main Oct 31, 2023
115 checks passed
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach deleted the schemadiff-fk-sequential-add-index branch October 31, 2023 15:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Query Serving Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants