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

Fix errant GTID detection in VTOrc to also work with a replica not connected to any primary #17267

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 25, 2024

Conversation

GuptaManan100
Copy link
Member

Description

As pointed out in #17254, there is a case where VTOrc is unable to detect errant GTIDs on a tablet that got demoted.

The underlying cause of the problem was that VTOrc was not running errant GTID detection for tablets that weren't connected to any primary. Previously it would fix the replication on the tablet first and then run errant GTID detection eventually to figure out if it had errant GTIDs. However, ever since we made the vttablets also run errant GTID detection on reparent (#16833), VTOrc is unsuccessful in reparenting the tablet with errant GTIDs since the vttablets fail with an error.

The fix is to augment VTOrc to run errant GTID detection with the primary tablet that it would reparent the replica to. There is only one special case that we need to handle which is that of the new primary's information not being advanced enough. Since VTOrc gathers information in a polling fashion, it is possible that the shard record in its data store points to the new primary, but the data collected from the new primary is older than when the promotion happened. If we use this information for errant GTID detection, we will end up marking the wrong GTIDs as errant. This situation is, however, easy to detect. We do so by checking if the primary's record has a source of its own or not. If it doesn't then the information has to have been gathered after it was promoted.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <manan@planetscale.com>
…re the replica is not connected to any primary

Signed-off-by: Manan Gupta <manan@planetscale.com>
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 added Type: Bug Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: VTorc Vitess Orchestrator integration labels Nov 21, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Nov 21, 2024

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 NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required 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 Nov 21, 2024
@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 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 NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Nov 21, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Nov 21, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 21, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 87.50000% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.39%. Comparing base (c5d0ecc) to head (916e97f).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/vt/vtorc/inst/instance_dao.go 87.50% 5 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17267      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.37%   67.39%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1573     1573              
  Lines      253110   253126      +16     
==========================================
+ Hits       170535   170598      +63     
+ Misses      82575    82528      -47     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.


🚨 Try these New Features:

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach merged commit 072d1fa into vitessio:main Nov 25, 2024
109 of 112 checks passed
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach deleted the vtorc-errant-gtid branch November 25, 2024 12:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: VTorc Vitess Orchestrator integration Type: Bug Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug Report: VTOrc in unable to detect errant GTIDs on a recently demoted primary
3 participants