Allows the use of modification commands (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) within
transaction blocks (delimited by BEGIN and ROLLBACK/COMMIT), so long as
all modifications hit a subset of nodes involved in the first such com-
mand in the transaction. This does not circumvent the requirement that
each individual modification command must still target a single shard.
For instance, after sending BEGIN, a user might INSERT some rows to a
shard replicated on two nodes. Subsequent modifications can hit other
shards, so long as they are on one or both of these nodes.
SAVEPOINTs are supported, though if the user actually attempts to send
a ROLLBACK command that specifies a SAVEPOINT they will receive an
ERROR at the end of the topmost transaction.
Placements are only marked inactive if at least one replica succeeds
in a transaction where others fail. Non-atomic behavior is possible if
the shard targeted by the initial modification within a transaction has
a higher replication factor than another shard within the same block
and a node with the latter shard has a failure during the COMMIT phase.
Other methods of denoting transaction blocks (multi-statement commands
sent all at once and functions written in e.g. PL/pgSQL or other such
languages) are not presently supported; their treatment remains the
same as before.
When executing queries with citus.task_executor = 'real-time', query
execution could, so far, spend a significant amount of time
sleeping. That's because we were
a) sleeping after several phases of query execution, even if we're not
waiting for network IO
b) sleeping for a fixed amount of time when waiting for network IO;
often a lot longer than actually required.
Just reducing the amount of time slept isn't a real solution, because
that just increases CPU usage.
Instead have the real-time executor's ManageTaskExecution return whether
a task is currently being processed, waiting for reads or writes, or
failed. When all tasks are waiting for IO use poll() to wait for IO
readyness.
That requires to slightly redefine how connection timeouts are handled:
before we counted the number of times ManageTaskExecution() was called,
and compared that with the timeout divided by the task check
interval. That, if processing of tasks took a while, could significantly
increase the time till a timeout occurred. Because it was based on the
ManageTaskExecution() being called on a constant interval, this approach
isn't feasible anymore. Instead measure the actual time since
connection establishment was started. That could in theory, if task
processing takes a very long time, lead to few passes over
PQconnectPoll().
The problem of sleeping too much also exists for the 'task-tracker'
executor, but is generally less problematic there, as processing the
individual tasks usually will take longer. That said, for e.g. the
regression tests it'd be helpful to use a similar approach.
So far we've always used libpq defaults when connecting to workers; bar
special environment variables being set that'll always be the user that
started the server. That's not desirable because it prevents using
users with fewer privileges.
Thus change the various APIs creating connections to workers to always
use usernames. That means:
1) MultiClientConnect() needs to, optionally, accept a username
2) GetOrEstablishConnection(), including the underlying cache, need to
use the current user as part of the connection cache key. That way
connections for separate users are distinct, and we always use one
with the correct authorization.
3) The task tracker needs to keep track of the username associated with
a task, so it can use it when establishing connections outside the
originating session.
Onder Kalaci
Jason Petersen
Metin Doslu
Andres Freund
Amos Bird