hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Removing the bypass semantic from the Coprocessor APIs
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:29:59 GMT
That's fine, and I'm quite familiar with how that works.

I was just trying to catch up with the express purpose of driving 
forward alpha-4. As a bystander, this is an unassigned blocker. I wanted 
to make sure that we both had consensus on what people think we should 
do as well as someone signing up to do that work.

If we don't have both, it's my opinion that we shouldn't keep it in alpha-4.

On 10/17/17 6:15 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Sometimes we don't arrive at a point where discussions happen and decisions
> are made until code is about to ship. A general thing with open source, I
> think. It is less than ideal but important to strike when that iron is
> (eventually) hot.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> (catching up here)
>>
>> I'm glad to see you fine folks came to a conclusion around a reduced-scope
>> solution (correct me if I'm wrong). "Some" bypass mechanism would stay for
>> preXXX methods, and we'd remove it for the other methods? What exactly the
>> "bypass API" would be is up in the air, correct?
>>
>> Duo -- maybe you could put the "current plan" on HBASE-18770 since
>> discussion appears to have died down?
>>
>> I was originally lamenting yet another big, sweeping change to CPs when I
>> had expected alpha-4 to have already landed. But, let me play devil's
>> advocate: is this something we still think is critical to do in alpha-4? I
>> can respect wanting to get address all of these smells, but I'd be worry it
>> delays us further.
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/17 9:53 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote:
>>
>>> Creating an exception is expensive so if it is not suggested to do it in a
>>> normal case. A common trick is to create a global exception instance, and
>>> always throw it to avoid creating every time but I think it is more
>>> friendly to just use a return value?
>>>
>>> And for me, the bypass after preXXX for normal region operations just
>>> equals to a 'cancel', which is very clear and easy to understand, so I
>>> think it is OK to add bypass support for them. And also for compaction and
>>> flush, it is OK to give CP users the ability to cancel the operation as
>>> the
>>> semantic is clear, although I'm not sure how CP users would use this
>>> feature.
>>>
>>> In general, I think we can provide bypass/cancel support in preXXX methods
>>> where it is the very beginning of an operation.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> 2017-10-12 3:10 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>:
>>>
>>> On Phoenix Increment by-pass, an ornery item is that Phoenix wants to use
>>>>>
>>>> its long encoding writing Increments. Not sure how we'd do that,
>>>> selectively.
>>>>
>>>> If we can handle the rest of the trouble that you observed:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Lack of recognition and identification of when the key value to
>>>> increment doesn't exist
>>>> 2) Lack of the ability to set the timestamp of the updated key value.
>>>>
>>>> then they might be able to make it work. Perhaps a conversion from HBase
>>>> native to Phoenix LONG encoding when processing results, in the wrapping
>>>> scanner, informed by schema metadata.
>>>>
>>>> Or if we are keeping the bypass semantic in select places but
>>>> implementing
>>>> it with something other than today's bypass() API (please) this would be
>>>> another candidate for where to keep it. Duo suggests keeping the semantic
>>>> in all of the basic RPC preXXX hooks for query and mutation. We could
>>>> redo
>>>> those APIs to skip normal processing based on a return value or exception
>>>> but otherwise drop bypass from all the others. It will clean up areas of
>>>> confusion, e.g. can I bypass splits or flushes or not? Or what about this
>>>> arcane hook in compaction? Or [insert some deep hook here]? The answer
>>>> would be: only RPC hooks will early out, and only if you return this
>>>> value,
>>>> or throw that exception.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The YARN Timeline Server has the FlowRunCoprocessor. It does bypass when
>>>>> user does a Get returning instead the result of its own (Flow) Scan
>>>>>
>>>> result.
>>>>
>>>>> Not sure how we'd do alternative here; Timeline Server is keeping Tags
>>>>> internally.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather than continue to support a weird bypass() which works in some
>>>>>>
>>>>> places
>>>>>
>>>>>> and not in others, perhaps we can substitute it with an exception?
So
>>>>>>
>>>>> if
>>>>
>>>>> the coprocessor throws this exception in the pre hook then where it is
>>>>>> allowed we catch it and do the right thing, and where it is not allowed
>>>>>>
>>>>> we
>>>>>
>>>>>> don't catch it and the server aborts. This will at least improve
the
>>>>>>
>>>>> silent
>>>>>
>>>>>> bypass() failure problem. I also don't like, in retrospect, that
>>>>>>
>>>>> calling
>>>>
>>>>> this environment method has magic side effects. Everyone understands
>>>>>>
>>>>> how
>>>>
>>>>> exceptions work, so it will be clearer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could do that though throw and catch of exceptions would be costly.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about the Duo suggestion? Purge bypass flag and replace it w/
>>>>> preXXX
>>>>> in a few select methods returning a boolean on whether bypass? Would
>>>>> that
>>>>> work? (Would have to figure metrics still).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case we should try to address the Tephra and Phoenix cases
>>>>>>
>>>>> brought
>>>>
>>>>> up in this discussion. They look like we can find alternatives. Shall
I
>>>>>> file JIRAs to follow up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Phoenix Increment by-pass, an ornery item is that Phoenix wants
to
>>>>> use
>>>>> its long encoding writing Increments. Not sure how we'd do that,
>>>>> selectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> St.Ack
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:00 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino219@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These examples are great.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I think for normal region operations such as get, put, delete,
>>>>>>> checkAndXXX, increment, it is OK to bypass the real operation
after
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> preXXX
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as the semantic is clear enough. Instead of calling env.bypass,
maybe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> just
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> let these preXXX methods return a boolean is enough to tell the
HBase
>>>>>>> framework that we have already done the real operation so just
give
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> up
>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> return?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 3:19 GMT+08:00 Gary Helmling <ghelmling@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Tephra TransactionProcessor CP makes use of bypass() in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> preDelete()
>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> override handling of delete tombstones in a transactional
way:
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-tephra/blob/master/
>>>>>>>> tephra-hbase-compat-1.3/src/main/java/org/apache/tephra/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hbase/coprocessor/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TransactionProcessor.java#L244
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The CDAP IncrementHandler CP also makes use of bypass() in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> preGetOp()
>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> preIncrementAfterRRowLock() to provide a transaction implementation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>> readless increments:
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/caskdata/cdap/blob/develop/cdap-hbase-
>>>>>>>> compat-1.1/src/main/java/co/cask/cdap/data2/increment/
>>>>>>>> hbase11/IncrementHandler.java#L121
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would be the alternate approach for these applications?
 In
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> both
>>>>
>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> they need to impose their own semantics on the underlying
KeyValue
>>>>>>>> storage.  Is there a different way this can be done?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:58 AM Anoop John <anoop.hbase@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrap core scanners is different right?  That can be done
in post
>>>>>>>>> hooks.  I have seen many use cases for this..  Its the
question
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> abt
>>>>
>>>>> the pre hooks where we have not yet created the core object (like
>>>>>>>>> scanner).  The CP pre code itself doing the work of object
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> creation
>>>>
>>>>> and so the core code is been bypassed.    Well the wrapping thing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>
>>>>>> be done in pre hook also. First create the core object by CP code
>>>>>>>>> itself and then do the wrapped object and return.. I
have seen in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>
>>>>>> jira issue where the usage was this way..   The wrapping can be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>
>>>>>> in post also in such cases I believe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Anoop-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Andrew Purtell <
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> apurtell@apache.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think we should continue to support overriding
function by
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>
>>>>>> inheritance. I didn't mention this and am not proposing more
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>
>>>>> removing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the bypass() sematic. No more no less. Phoenix absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> depends
>>>>
>>>>> on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> able to wrap core scanners and return the wrappers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Anoop John <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> anoop.hbase@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we say bypass the core code, it can be done
today not
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>
>>>>> by
>>>>>
>>>>>> calling bypass but by returning a not null object for some of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>> pre
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hooks.  Like preScannerOpen() if it return a scanner object,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>
>>>>> will
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> avoid the remaining core code execution for creation of the
>>>>>>>>>>> scanner(s).  So this proposal include this aspect
also and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>
>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> possible way of bypassing the core code by the CP hook code
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?   Am +1.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Anoop-
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:40 PM, Andrew Purtell
<
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> apurtell@apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The coprocessor API provides an environment
method,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> bypass(),
>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> called from a preXXX hook will cause the core code
to skip
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>
>>>>> remaining
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> processing. This capability was introduced on HBASE-3348.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> time I
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> think we are more enlightened about the complications
of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>
>>>>> feature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Or,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway, speaking for myself:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not all hooks provide the bypass semantic.
Where this is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> javadoc for the hook says so, but it can be missed. If
you
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>
>>>>>> bypass()
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a hook where it is not supported it is a
no-op. This can
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> lead
>>>>
>>>>> to a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> poor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> developer experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where bypass is supported what is being bypassed
is all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> core
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> implementing the remainder of the operation. In order
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> calling bypass() will skip, a coprocessor implementer
should
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> understand all of the remaining code and its nuances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Although I
>>>>>
>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is good practice for coprocessor developers
in general, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> demands a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lot. I
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> think it would provide a much better developer
experience if
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> allow bypass, even though it means - in theory - a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> coprocessor
>>>>
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> lot more limited in some ways than before. What is
skipped
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>> extremely
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> version dependent. That core code will vary, perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> significantly,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> between point releases. We do not provide the promise
of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> consistent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> behavior even between point releases for the bypass
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> semantic.
>>>>
>>>>> To
>>>>>
>>>>>> achieve
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that we could not change any code between hook points.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> coprocessor implementer becomes an HBase core developer in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> practice
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> as they rely on bypass(). Every release of
HBase may break
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> assumption
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that the replacement for the bypassed code takes
care of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> skipped concerns. Because those concerns can change at
any
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> such an
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> assumption is never safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I say "in theory" because I would be surprised
if anyone is
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> relying
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> bypass for the above reason. I seem to recall
that Phoenix
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>
>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> one place to promote a normal mutation into
an atomic
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> operation,
>>>>>
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> substituting one for the other, but if so that objective
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>
>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reimplemented using their new locking manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message