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: prohibit StreamAgg with group keys for TiFlash #39547

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Dec 1, 2022

Conversation

fixdb
Copy link
Contributor

@fixdb fixdb commented Dec 1, 2022

StreamAgg with group keys is not supported on TiFlash.

Issue Number: close #39266

Problem Summary:

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

Documentation

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

Release note

None

StreamAgg with group keys is not supported on TiFlash.
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

ti-chi-bot commented Dec 1, 2022

[REVIEW NOTIFICATION]

This pull request has been approved by:

  • chrysan
  • winoros

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 do-not-merge/invalid-title release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. do-not-merge/needs-triage-completed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Dec 1, 2022
@fixdb fixdb changed the title Prohibit StreamAgg with group keys for TiFlash planner: prohibit StreamAgg with group keys for TiFlash Dec 1, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added status/LGT1 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 1. needs-cherry-pick-release-5.3 Type: Need cherry pick to release-5.3 needs-cherry-pick-release-5.4 Should cherry pick this PR to release-5.4 branch. needs-cherry-pick-release-6.1 Should cherry pick this PR to release-6.1 branch. and removed do-not-merge/needs-triage-completed labels Dec 1, 2022
@winoros winoros removed needs-cherry-pick-release-5.3 Type: Need cherry pick to release-5.3 needs-cherry-pick-release-5.4 Should cherry pick this PR to release-5.4 branch. labels Dec 1, 2022
@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 Dec 1, 2022
@fixdb
Copy link
Contributor Author

fixdb commented Dec 1, 2022

/run-unit-test

@winoros
Copy link
Member

winoros commented Dec 1, 2022

/merge

@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

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

Commit hash: ed7cc95

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added the status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. label Dec 1, 2022
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot added needs-cherry-pick-release-5.3 Type: Need cherry pick to release-5.3 needs-cherry-pick-release-5.4 Should cherry pick this PR to release-5.4 branch. labels Dec 1, 2022
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #39565.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tidb that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2022
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #39566.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tidb that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2022
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
@ti-chi-bot
Copy link
Member

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created: #39567.

ti-chi-bot pushed a commit to ti-chi-bot/tidb that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2022
Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
@sre-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sre-bot commented Dec 1, 2022

TiDB MergeCI notify

🔴 Bad News! [3] CI still failing after this pr merged.
These failed integration tests don't seem to be introduced by the current PR.

CI Name Result Duration Compare with Parent commit
idc-jenkins-ci/integration-cdc-test 🔴 failed 1, success 39, total 40 24 min Existing failure
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/integration-common-test 🔴 failed 2, success 15, total 17 12 min Existing failure
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/common-test 🔴 failed 1, success 10, total 11 10 min Existing failure
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/integration-ddl-test 🟢 all 6 tests passed 8 min 52 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/tics-test 🟢 all 1 tests passed 5 min 45 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/sqllogic-test-2 🟢 all 28 tests passed 5 min 12 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/sqllogic-test-1 🟢 all 26 tests passed 4 min 57 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/mybatis-test 🟢 all 1 tests passed 3 min 23 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/integration-compatibility-test 🟢 all 1 tests passed 2 min 43 sec Existing passed
idc-jenkins-ci-tidb/plugin-test 🟢 build success, plugin test success 4min Existing passed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs-cherry-pick-release-5.3 Type: Need cherry pick to release-5.3 needs-cherry-pick-release-5.4 Should cherry pick this PR to release-5.4 branch. needs-cherry-pick-release-6.1 Should cherry pick this PR to release-6.1 branch. 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. status/can-merge Indicates a PR has been approved by a committer. status/LGT2 Indicates that a PR has LGTM 2.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Data inconsistency when tpcc check
5 participants