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

Incremental restore: fix the issue that backfill data is not covered by newTS #54430

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jul 8, 2024

Conversation

3pointer
Copy link
Contributor

@3pointer 3pointer commented Jul 4, 2024

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #54426

Problem Summary:
see #54426 (comment)

What changed and how does it work?

make sure the rewritten data cover the backfilled data.

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No need to test
    • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

  • Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
  • Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
  • Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

  • Affects user behaviors
  • Contains syntax changes
  • Contains variable changes
  • Contains experimental features
  • Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

 fix the issue that backfill ddls(add index/modify column) may not restored correctly during incremental restore.

Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Jul 4, 2024

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added do-not-merge/needs-tests-checked do-not-merge/needs-triage-completed release-note-none do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 4, 2024
Copy link

tiprow bot commented Jul 4, 2024

Hi @3pointer. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@3pointer
Copy link
Contributor Author

3pointer commented Jul 4, 2024

/ok-to-test

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the ok-to-test label Jul 4, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 4, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 70.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 56.7944%. Comparing base (22f9a3b) to head (ce345a0).
Report is 25 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #54430         +/-   ##
=================================================
- Coverage   72.8182%   56.7944%   -16.0238%     
=================================================
  Files          1536       1664        +128     
  Lines        435896     612938     +177042     
=================================================
+ Hits         317412     348115      +30703     
- Misses        98850     241069     +142219     
- Partials      19634      23754       +4120     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 38.3504% <70.0000%> (?)
unit 71.9880% <0.0000%> (+0.1618%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components Coverage Δ
dumpling 52.9656% <ø> (ø)
parser ∅ <ø> (∅)
br 62.8415% <70.0000%> (+16.7771%) ⬆️

@3pointer
Copy link
Contributor Author

3pointer commented Jul 4, 2024

/ok-to-test

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Jul 4, 2024
@3pointer
Copy link
Contributor Author

3pointer commented Jul 4, 2024

/ok-to-test

@3pointer 3pointer changed the title incremental restore: fix the issue that backfill data is not covered … Incremental restore: fix the issue that backfill data is not covered by newTS Jul 5, 2024
@3pointer 3pointer marked this pull request as ready for review July 5, 2024 02:26
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jul 5, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@Leavrth Leavrth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It may be worth noting that
Restore GC Safepoint TS < DDL ts < Incremental kv Rewrite ts

@3pointer
Copy link
Contributor Author

3pointer commented Jul 5, 2024

/test pull-br-integration-test

Copy link

tiprow bot commented Jul 5, 2024

@3pointer: The specified target(s) for /test were not found.
The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:

  • /test fast_test_tiprow
  • /test tidb_parser_test

Use /test all to run all jobs.

In response to this:

/test pull-br-integration-test

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@3pointer
Copy link
Contributor Author

3pointer commented Jul 5, 2024

/test check-dev2

Copy link

tiprow bot commented Jul 5, 2024

@3pointer: The specified target(s) for /test were not found.
The following commands are available to trigger required jobs:

  • /test fast_test_tiprow
  • /test tidb_parser_test

Use /test all to run all jobs.

In response to this:

/test check-dev2

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Jul 5, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Leavrth, YuJuncen

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Jul 5, 2024

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

  • 2024-07-05 03:24:45.232298156 +0000 UTC m=+1554011.717786987: ☑️ agreed by Leavrth.
  • 2024-07-05 09:19:25.884658426 +0000 UTC m=+3663.119892541: ☑️ agreed by YuJuncen.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot merged commit 08147e7 into pingcap:master Jul 8, 2024
28 checks passed
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.5: #54505.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tidb that referenced this pull request Jul 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved lgtm needs-cherry-pick-release-7.5 ok-to-test release-note size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

br: incremental restore does not handle CREATE INDEX (ADD INDEX) correctly, causing data inconsistency
4 participants