Summary:
We haven't been actively mantaining RocksDB LITE recently and the size must have been gone up significantly. We are removing the support.
Most of changes were done through following comments:
unifdef -m -UROCKSDB_LITE `git grep -l ROCKSDB_LITE | egrep '[.](cc|h)'`
by Peter Dillinger. Others changes were manually applied to build scripts, CircleCI manifests, ROCKSDB_LITE is used in an expression and file db_stress_test_base.cc.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11147
Test Plan: See CI
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D42796341
fbshipit-source-id: 4920e15fc2060c2cd2221330a6d0e5e65d4b7fe2
Summary:
This PR has two commits:
1. Modify the code to allow different Lock Managers (of any kind) to be used. It is implied that a LockManager uses its own custom LockTracker.
2. Add definitions for Range Locking (class Endpoint and GetRangeLock() function.
cheng-chang, is this what you've had in mind (should the PR have both item 1 and item 2?)
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7443
Reviewed By: zhichao-cao
Differential Revision: D24123172
Pulled By: cheng-chang
fbshipit-source-id: c6548ad6d4cc3c25f68d13b29147bc6fdf357185
Summary:
In order to be able to introduce more locking protocols, we need to abstract out the locking subsystem in TransactionDB into a set of interfaces.
PR https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7013 introduces interface `LockTracker`. This PR is a follow up to take the first step to abstract out a `LockManager` interface.
Further modifications to the interface may be needed when introducing the first implementation of range lock. But the idea here is to put the range lock implementation based on range tree under the `utilities/transactions/lock/range/range_tree`.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7532
Test Plan: point_lock_manager_test
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D24238731
Pulled By: cheng-chang
fbshipit-source-id: 2a9458cd8b3fb008d9529dbc4d3b28c24631f463
Summary:
We're going to support more locking protocols such as range lock in transaction.
However, in current design, `TransactionBase` has a member `tracked_keys` which assumes that point lock (lock a single key) is used, and is used in snapshot checking (isolation protocol). When using range lock, we may use read committed instead of snapshot checking as the isolation protocol.
The most significant usage scenarios of `tracked_keys` are:
1. pessimistic transaction uses it to track the locked keys, and unlock these keys when commit or rollback.
2. optimistic transaction does not lock keys upfront, it only tracks the lock intentions in tracked_keys, and do write conflict checking when commit.
3. each `SavePoint` tracks the keys that are locked since the `SavePoint`, `RollbackToSavePoint` or `PopSavePoint` relies on both the tracked keys in `SavePoint`s and `tracked_keys`.
Based on these scenarios, if we can abstract out a `LockTracker` interface to hold a set of tracked locks (can be keys or key ranges), and have methods that can be composed together to implement the scenarios, then `tracked_keys` can be an internal data structure of one implementation of `LockTracker`. See `utilities/transactions/lock/lock_tracker.h` for the detailed interface design, and `utilities/transactions/lock/point_lock_tracker.cc` for the implementation.
In the future, a `RangeLockTracker` can be implemented to track range locks without affecting other components.
After this PR, a clean interface for lock manager should be possible, and then ideally, we can have pluggable locking protocols.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7013
Test Plan: Run `transaction_test` and `optimistic_transaction_test`.
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D22163706
Pulled By: cheng-chang
fbshipit-source-id: f2860577b5334e31dd2994f5bc6d7c40d502b1b4
