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

release-24.3: sql: fix including all related FK tables into the stmt bundle #137794

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: release-24.3
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

blathers-crl[bot]
Copy link

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Backport 1/1 commits from #137738 on behalf of @yuzefovich.

/cc @cockroachdb/release


Earlier this year in 084a741 we made a change to include all tables referencing the table from the stmt bundle (i.e. those that we have an inbound FK relationship with). However, we forgot to include tables that the referencing table is dependent on, so this commit fixes that oversight. Namely, we now include all tables that we reference or that reference us via the FK relationship, and this rule is applied recursively to every table in consideration. (Previously, we didn't include inbound FKs when handling an outbound FK nor outbound FKs when handling an inbound FK.)

Note that I believe we could have avoided including referencing tables (i.e. with an inbound FK relationship) that only have NO ACTION or RESTRICT actions in the ON DELETE and ON UPDATE, but I think those cases aren't very common, and it's unlikely to hurt including all "related" tables. The case of FK cycles is still not handled correctly on the stmt bundle recreation, but I think we have yet to run into one in a support ticket.

Informs: https://github.com/cockroachlabs/support/issues/3146.
Epic: None

Release note: None


Release justification: low-risk supportability improvement.

Earlier this year in 084a741 we made
a change to include all tables referencing the table from the stmt
bundle (i.e. those that we have an inbound FK relationship with).
However, we forgot to include tables that the referencing table is
dependent on, so this commit fixes that oversight. Namely, we now
include all tables that we reference or that reference us via the FK
relationship, and this rule is applied recursively to every table in
consideration. (Previously, we didn't include inbound FKs when
handling an outbound FK nor outbound FKs when handling an inbound FK.)

Note that I believe we could have avoided including referencing tables
(i.e. with an inbound FK relationship) that only have NO ACTION or
RESTRICT actions in the ON DELETE and ON UPDATE, but I think those cases
aren't very common, and it's unlikely to hurt including all "related"
tables. The case of FK cycles is still not handled correctly on the stmt
bundle recreation, but I think we have yet to run into one in a support
ticket.

Release note: None
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested a review from a team as a code owner December 19, 2024 19:36
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot force-pushed the blathers/backport-release-24.3-137738 branch from 3099f52 to 362ae0a Compare December 19, 2024 19:36
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested review from mgartner and removed request for a team December 19, 2024 19:36
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot. labels Dec 19, 2024
Copy link
Author

blathers-crl bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

  • Backports should only be created for serious
    issues
    or test-only changes.
  • Backports should not break backwards-compatibility.
  • Backports should change as little code as possible.
  • Backports should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
  • Backports should not add new functionality (except as defined
    here).
  • Backports must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.
  • All backports must be reviewed by the owning areas TL. For more information as to how that review should be conducted, please consult the backport
    policy
    .
If your backport adds new functionality, please ensure that the following additional criteria are satisfied:
  • There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
  • The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
  • New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters. State changes must be further protected such that nodes running old binaries will not be negatively impacted by the new state (with a mixed version test added).
  • The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.
  • Your backport must be accompanied by a post to the appropriate Slack
    channel (#db-backports-point-releases or #db-backports-XX-X-release) for awareness and discussion.

Also, please add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this
backport.

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested a review from rytaft December 19, 2024 19:36
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added the backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches label Dec 19, 2024
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

Copy link
Collaborator

@rytaft rytaft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:lgtm:

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @mgartner)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants