couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] couchdb 4.0 transactional semantics
Date Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:12:39 GMT
No, I would not. I was thinking only of the previous major release. so a 3.x.y that adds bidirection
replication compatibility with 4.0.0.

B.

> On 16 Jul 2020, at 21:50, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2020-07-16 2:24 p.m., Robert Samuel Newson wrote:
>> Agreed on all 4 points. On the final point, it's worth noting that a continuous changes
feed was two-phase, the first is indeed over a snapshot of the db as of the start of the _changes
request, the second phase is an endless series of subsequent snapshots. the 4.0 behaviour
won't exactly match that but it's definitely in the same spirit.
>> Agreed also on requiring pagination (I've not reviewed the proposed pagination api
in sufficient detail to +1 it yet). Would we start the response as rows are retrieved, though?
That's my preference, with an unclean termination if we hit txn_too_old, and an upper bound
on the "limit" parameter or equivalent chosen such that txn_too_old is vanishingly unlikely.
>> On compatibility, there's precedent for a minor release of old branches just to add
replicator compatibility. for example, the replicator could call _changes again if it received
a complete _changes response (i.e, one that ended with a } that completes the json object)
that did not include a "last_seq" row. The 4.0 replicator would always do this.
> 
> I wouldn't really want to release a new 1.x, would you? Augh.
> 
> If we're going to change how replication works, wouldn't it better to simply say "there
is no guaranteed one-shot replication back from 4.x to 1.x?" Or, intentionally break backward
compatibility so one-shot replication to un-upgraded old Couches refuses to work at all? This
would prevent the confusion by making it clear - you can't do things this way anymore.
> 
> We could do a point release of 3.x, sure.
> 
> -Joan
> 
>> B.
>>> On 16 Jul 2020, at 17:25, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> From what I'm reading it sounds like we have general consensus on a few things:
>>> 
>>> 1. A single CouchDB API call should map to a single FDB transaction
>>> 2. We absolutely do not want to return a valid JSON response to any
>>> streaming API that hit a transaction boundary (because data
>>> loss/corruption)
>>> 3. We're willing to change the API requirements so that 2 is not an issue.
>>> 4. None of this applies to continuous changes since that API call was
>>> never a single snapshot.
>>> 
>>> If everyone generally agrees with that summarization, my suggestion
>>> would be that we just revisit the new pagination APIs and make them
>>> the only behavior rather than having them be opt-in. I believe those
>>> APIs already address all the concerns in this thread and the only
>>> reason we kept the older versions with `restart_tx` was to maintain
>>> API backwards compatibility at the expense of a slight change to
>>> semantics of snapshots. However, if there's a consensus that the
>>> semantics are more important than allowing a blanket `GET
>>> /db/_all_docs` I think it'd make the most sense to just embrace the
>>> pagination APIs that already exist and were written to cover these
>>> issues.
>>> 
>>> The only thing I'm not 100% on is how to deal with non-continuous
>>> replications. I.e., the older single shot replication. Do we go back
>>> with patches to older replicators to allow 4.0 compatibility? Just
>>> declare that you have to mediate a replication on the newer of the two
>>> CouchDB deployments? Sniff the replicator's UserAgent and behave
>>> differently on 4.x for just that special case?
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 7:25 PM Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I also missed that you quoted this specific bit about eagerly requesting
a new snapshot. Currently the code will just react to the transaction expiring, then wait
till it acquires a new snapshot if “restart_tx” is set (which can take a couple of milliseconds
on a FoundationDB cluster that is deployed across multiple AZs in a cloud Region) and then
proceed.
>>>> 
>>>> Adam
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:54 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Right now the code has an internal “restart_tx” flag that is used
to automatically request a new snapshot if the original one expires and continue streaming
the response. It can be used for all manner of multi-row responses, not just _changes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As this is a pretty big change to the isolation guarantees provided by
the database Bob volunteered to elevate the issue to the mailing list for a deeper discussion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers, Adam
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 15, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm having trouble following the thread...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 14/07/2020 14:56, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>>>>>> For cases where you’re not concerned about the snapshot isolation
(e.g. streaming an entire _changes feed), there is a small performance benefit to requesting
a new FDB transaction asynchronously before the old one actually times out and swapping over
to it. That’s a pattern I’ve seen in other FDB layers but I’m not sure we’ve used
it anywhere in CouchDB yet.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How does _changes work right now in the proposed 4.0 code?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Joan
>>>>> 
>>>> 


Mime
View raw message