[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Resolution: Fixed Release Note: Insert Overwrite commands even on transactional tables will acquire Exclusive locks to ensure correctness. This will be improved upon to allow greater concurrency. Status: Resolved (was: Patch Available) committed to branch-3/master thanks Sergey for the review > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Assignee: Eugene Koifman >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.01.patch, > HIVE-18570.02-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.02.patch, > HIVE-18570.03-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.03.patch, > HIVE-18570.04-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.05-branch-3.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Attachment: HIVE-18570.05-branch-3.patch > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Assignee: Eugene Koifman >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.01.patch, > HIVE-18570.02-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.02.patch, > HIVE-18570.03-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.03.patch, > HIVE-18570.04-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.05-branch-3.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Attachment: HIVE-18570.03.patch > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Assignee: Eugene Koifman >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.01.patch, > HIVE-18570.02-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.02.patch, > HIVE-18570.03-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.03.patch, > HIVE-18570.04-branch-3.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Attachment: HIVE-18570.02.patch > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Assignee: Eugene Koifman >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.01.patch, > HIVE-18570.02-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.02.patch, > HIVE-18570.03-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.04-branch-3.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Attachment: HIVE-18570.04-branch-3.patch > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Assignee: Eugene Koifman >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.01.patch, > HIVE-18570.02-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.03-branch-3.patch, > HIVE-18570.04-branch-3.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Attachment: HIVE-18570.03-branch-3.patch > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Assignee: Eugene Koifman >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.01.patch, > HIVE-18570.02-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.03-branch-3.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Attachment: HIVE-18570.02-branch-3.patch > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Assignee: Eugene Koifman >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.01.patch, > HIVE-18570.02-branch-3.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Attachment: HIVE-18570.01-branch-3.patch > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Assignee: Eugene Koifman >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01-branch-3.patch, HIVE-18570.01.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Status: Patch Available (was: Open) > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Assignee: Eugene Koifman >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Attachment: HIVE-18570.01.patch > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Assignee: Eugene Koifman >Priority: Blocker > Attachments: HIVE-18570.01.patch > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Eugene Koifman updated HIVE-18570: -- Target Version/s: 3.0.0 Fix Version/s: (was: 3.0.0) > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Blocker > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Description: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1 before 1 commits them). This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to fail. was: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1 before 1 commits them). If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to fail. > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Blocker > Fix For: 3.0.0 > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > This is if we look at IOW as transactional delete+insert. Otherwise we are > just saying IOW performs "semi"-transactional delete. > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Description: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1 before 1 commits them). If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to fail. was: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID semantics it could have never observed and affected. If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to fail. > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Blocker > Fix For: 3.0.0 > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected; this sequence of events > is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows > written by 1 before 1 commits them). > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Description: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID semantics it could have never observed and affected. If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to fail. was: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID semantics it could have never observed. If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to fail. > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Blocker > Fix For: 3.0.0 > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed and affected. > If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID > semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under > read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Description: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID semantics it could have never observed. If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to fail. was: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to fail. > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Blocker > Fix For: 3.0.0 > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > Txn 2 deletes rows committed by txn 1 that according to standard ACID > semantics it could have never observed. > If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID > semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under > read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). > If 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an > IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to > fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Component/s: Transactions > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Major > Fix For: 3.0.0 > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID > semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under > read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). > Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must > be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. > Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 > still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one > of them to fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Fix Version/s: 3.0.0 > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Blocker > Fix For: 3.0.0 > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID > semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under > read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). > Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must > be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. > Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 > still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one > of them to fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Priority: Blocker (was: Major) > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Blocker > Fix For: 3.0.0 > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID > semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under > read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). > Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must > be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. > Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 > still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one > of them to fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Labels: (was: transactions) > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Transactions >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Major > Fix For: 3.0.0 > > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID > semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under > read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). > Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must > be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. > Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 > still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one > of them to fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Labels: transactions (was: ) > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Major > Labels: transactions > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID > semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under > read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). > Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must > be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. > Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 > still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one > of them to fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Description: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one of them to fail. was: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows and 2 ran a delete, row lock conflict would cause one of them to fail. > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Major > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID > semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under > read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). > Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must > be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. > Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows instead of an insert, and 2 > still ran an IOW/delete, row lock conflict (or equivalent) should cause one > of them to fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HIVE-18570) ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sergey Shelukhin updated HIVE-18570: Description: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows and 2 ran a delete, row lock conflict would cause one of them to fail. was: Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. Txn 2 commits. Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. > ACID IOW implemented using base may delete too much data > > > Key: HIVE-18570 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-18570 > Project: Hive > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin >Priority: Major > > Suppose we have a table with delta_0 insert data. > Txn 1 starts an insert into delta_1. > Txn 2 starts an IOW into base_2. > Txn 2 commits. > Txn 1 commits after txn 2 but its results would be invisible. > If we treat IOW foo like DELETE FROM foo (to reason about it w.r.t. ACID > semantics), it seems to me this sequence of events is only possible under > read-uncommitted isolation level (so, 2 deletes rows written by 1). > Under any other isolation level rows written by 1 must survive, or there must > be some lock based change in sequence or conflict. > Update: to clarify, if 1 ran an update on rows and 2 ran a delete, row lock > conflict would cause one of them to fail. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
