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

*: better handle sysvar upgrades from older versions (#31583) #32997

Closed

Conversation

ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor

@ti-srebot ti-srebot commented Mar 10, 2022

cherry-pick #31583 to release-5.4
You can switch your code base to this Pull Request by using git-extras:

# In tidb repo:
git pr https://github.com/pingcap/tidb/pull/32997

After apply modifications, you can push your change to this PR via:

git push git@github.com:ti-srebot/tidb.git pr/32997:release-5.4-22f4c33d4007

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #31538

Problem Summary:

In v5.4 the GetGlobalSysVar() function returns an error if loading the value of a sysvar fails validation (in prior versions; no validation was performed at all, so this can be seen as a regression of #30293 ).

While this could be fixed by adjusting SHOW VARIABLES to handle these errors, it seems easier if we consistently handle upgrade issues in the GetGlobalSysVar() function in a determinstic way: replacing the default value if validation fails.

This also adds tests around system variable upgrades, which unfortunately were lacking previously.

This effectively reverts #31566 because it handles the issue in a different part of the code.

What is changed and how it works?

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
    Minor incompatibility: In 5.4 (and only 5.4) it was possible that some noop sysvars permitted incorrect values to be set. These now return an error again as in 5.3 and below.

Documentation

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

Release note

None

Signed-off-by: ti-srebot <ti-srebot@pingcap.com>
@ti-srebot ti-srebot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 10, 2022 16:00
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has not been approved.

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
Copy link
Member

@ti-srebot: This cherry pick PR is for a release branch and has not yet been approved by release team.
Adding the do-not-merge/cherry-pick-not-approved label.

To merge this cherry pick, it must first be approved by the collaborators.

AFTER it has been approved by collaborators, please ping the release team in a comment to request a cherry pick review.

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/test-infra repository.

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. label Mar 10, 2022
@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor Author

/run-all-tests

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. and removed do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed Indicates that a PR should not merge because it's missing one of the release note labels. labels Mar 10, 2022
@ti-srebot ti-srebot added compatibility-breaker Violation of forwards/backwards compatibility in a design-time piece. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. type/5.4-cherry-pick labels Mar 10, 2022
@ti-srebot
Copy link
Contributor Author

@morgo you're already a collaborator in bot's repo.

@morgo
Copy link
Contributor

morgo commented Mar 10, 2022

5.4 has its own fix for this (it was more of a workaround). So we can close this cherry-pick.

@morgo morgo closed this Mar 10, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
compatibility-breaker Violation of forwards/backwards compatibility in a design-time piece. do-not-merge/cherry-pick-not-approved release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. type/5.4-cherry-pick
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants