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

planner: fix the usage of ParamMaker in BatchPointGet #32534

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Feb 28, 2022

Conversation

qw4990
Copy link
Contributor

@qw4990 qw4990 commented Feb 22, 2022

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: ref #31056

Problem Summary: planner: fix the usage of ParamMaker in BatchPointGet

What is changed and how it works?

The following PR of #32235, no logical change, just refactor that replacing ParamMaker with Constant in BatchPointGet to make it safer.

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No code

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

None

@qw4990 qw4990 added type/enhancement The issue or PR belongs to an enhancement. sig/planner SIG: Planner labels Feb 22, 2022
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

ti-chi-bot commented Feb 22, 2022

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • Reminiscent
  • rebelice

To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling /cc @reviewer in the comment.
After your PR has acquired the required number of LGTMs, you can assign this pull request to the committer in the list by filling /assign @committer in the comment to help you merge this pull request.

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

Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review.
Reviewer can cancel approval by submitting a request changes review.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. label Feb 22, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 22, 2022
@qw4990
Copy link
Contributor Author

qw4990 commented Feb 23, 2022

/run-unit-test

@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Feb 23, 2022

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. label Feb 23, 2022
@qw4990
Copy link
Contributor Author

qw4990 commented Feb 28, 2022

We triggered Plan Cache PointGet Random Testing again and no regression was found.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. and removed status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. labels Feb 28, 2022
@qw4990
Copy link
Contributor Author

qw4990 commented Feb 28, 2022

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge.

Commit hash: cf1793f

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Feb 28, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot merged commit e8be778 into pingcap:master Feb 28, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. sig/planner SIG: Planner size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2. type/enhancement The issue or PR belongs to an enhancement.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants