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

release-23.2: rowexec: fix oid handling in merge join and zigzag join #123514

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 3, 2024

Conversation

blathers-crl[bot]
Copy link

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot commented May 2, 2024

Backport 1/1 commits from #123486 on behalf of @yuzefovich.

/cc @cockroachdb/release


This commit is a follow up fix to a4b6234 which fixed how we handle zero value Oid types. In particular, we now need to have the precise type information for Oid type family to display zero Oid correctly. Previously, we could have imprecise information in merge join and zigzag joins that was stored in the right-hand side EncDatum when it was decoded using the LHS type, and this is now fixed. I don't think other join types (hash join and lookup join) are susceptible to this since they do decoding at different points in time, so it's unlikely we'd get a similar mix up there.

There is no release note since it seems like an edge case (comparing Oid types with different Oids in non-default row-by-row engine).

Fixes: #123474.

Release note: None


Release justification: bug fix.

This commit is a follow up fix to
a4b6234 which fixed how we handle zero
value Oid types. In particular, we now need to have the precise type
information for Oid type family to display zero Oid correctly.
Previously, we could have imprecise information in merge join and zigzag
joins that was stored in the right-hand side EncDatum when it was decoded
using the LHS type, and this is now fixed. I don't think other join
types (hash join and lookup join) are susceptible to this since they do
decoding at different points in time, so it's unlikely we'd get
a similar mix up there.

There is no release note since it seems like an edge case (comparing Oid
types with different Oids in non-default row-by-row engine).

Release note: None
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested a review from a team as a code owner May 2, 2024 20:42
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot force-pushed the blathers/backport-release-23.2-123486 branch from 7e16bbf to a62f8d3 Compare May 2, 2024 20:42
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot requested review from rytaft and removed request for a team May 2, 2024 20:42
@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot. labels May 2, 2024
Copy link
Author

blathers-crl bot commented May 2, 2024

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

  • Backports should only be created for serious
    issues
    or test-only changes.
  • Backports should not break backwards-compatibility.
  • Backports should change as little code as possible.
  • Backports should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
  • Backports should not add new functionality (except as defined
    here).
  • Backports must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.
  • All backports must be reviewed by the owning areas TL and one additional
    TL. For more information as to how that review should be conducted, please consult the backport
    policy
    .
If your backport adds new functionality, please ensure that the following additional criteria are satisfied:
  • There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
  • The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
  • New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters. State changes must be further protected such that nodes running old binaries will not be negatively impacted by the new state (with a mixed version test added).
  • The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.
  • Your backport must be accompanied by a post to the appropriate Slack
    channel (#db-backports-point-releases or #db-backports-XX-X-release) for awareness and discussion.

Also, please add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this
backport.

@blathers-crl blathers-crl bot added the backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches label May 2, 2024
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

Copy link
Collaborator

@DrewKimball DrewKimball left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:lgtm:

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @rytaft and @yuzefovich)

@yuzefovich yuzefovich merged commit d475854 into release-23.2 May 3, 2024
5 of 6 checks passed
@yuzefovich yuzefovich deleted the blathers/backport-release-23.2-123486 branch May 3, 2024 01:46
@mgartner
Copy link
Collaborator

mgartner commented May 3, 2024

Can you post to backports channel?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport Label PR's that are backports to older release branches blathers-backport This is a backport that Blathers created automatically. O-robot Originated from a bot.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants