I think complete and bypass are separate considerations and complete can be used universally while we've decided to make bypass work only in some contexts.
That said, we can consider removing the complete semantic. Let's pose the same question we did about bypass. Does anyone use it? Can we live without it? As you point out, security interrupts processing by throwing an exception, which is meant to propagate all the way back to the user. It simplifies the theory of operation for coprocessors if we can assume either the entire chain will complete or one of the coprocessors in the chain will throw an exception that not only terminates processing of the rest of the chain but also the operation in progress. On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > HBASE-18770 (bypass) is coming along (thanks for the helpful reviews so > far!). > > Of note, I have changed the Coprocessor Observer 'complete' function so it > is only available on 'bypassable' methods. Is this ok to do (I'm no expert > on coprocessoring)? I do it in in the name of KISS. Having any Coprocessor > being able to 'complete' overriding any Coprocessor that comes behind it in > the processing chain seems obnoxious. I can see the need if a Coprocessor > is bypasable and has conjured an answer it wants to be back to the client > without tainting by subsequent Coprocessors -- which seems to be how it is > used in my survey of Coprocessor implementations -- but perhaps I am > missing a use case? (AccessController throws an exception when access is > denied). Downside of supporting 'complete' globally is more overrides > internally and messaging gets a bit more muddled. > > Here is more on 'complete' in case you don't know what it is about. If a > method's 'pre' hook is wrapped by 10 Coprocessor observers, each observer > gets called one after the other before we go ahead and do the actual > method invocation. If the first Coprocessor in the chain calls 'complete' > in its context, we will skip calling the remaining 9 coprocessors and then > go ahead and make the method invocation. > > Any opinions out there on 'complete'? Any objections to my only allowing > 'complete' on bypassable methods? > > Thanks, > St.Ack > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I made a start on HBASE-18770. It has edit of RegionObserver which > denotes > > methods that support bypass (Unfortunately, because of the varied > > signatures, how bypass is signaled varies too). Would appreciate a > > once-over. > > > > of note, a CP cannot bypass flush. Speak up if you think otherwise (or > you > > can think of a case where this needed). My rationale is CPs won't have > > enough insider knowledge to do memory accounting in a world of in-memory > > compactions, and on/offheap memory in our hosting process. What ye > reckon? > > > > Coprocessors have always been able to adjust what gets compacted in any > > run and even skirt compaction altogether by returning an empty set of > files > > to compact. This works as it ever did. > > > > Thanks, > > S > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I was going to pick up on the bypass after HBASE-19007 lands, cleaning > up > >> our exposure of Master/RegionServerServices to Coprocessors (HBASE-19007 > >> was going bad for a good while but lots of contributors and good > discussion > >> and now I think we have it). Shouldn't be too much longer. > >> > >> Its CP API so I was figuring it an alpha-4 item. > >> > >> St.Ack > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:56 PM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Fine. Let me change the title of HBASE-18770 and prepare a patch there. > >>> > >>> May still a week or two before alpha4 I think. The scan injection, and > >>> flush/compaction trigger/track API is still unstable... > >>> > >>> 2017-10-18 6:12 GMT+08:00 Josh Elser <[email protected]>: > >>> > >>> > (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 <[email protected]>: > >>> >> > >>> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> >>>> 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) < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 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 < > >>> [email protected] > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>> 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 < > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 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 < > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 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 < > >>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> 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. > >>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >> > >> > > > -- Best regards, Andrew Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's decrepit hands - A23, Crosstalk
