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

Sub-transactions API #912

Open
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

yrashk
Copy link
Contributor

@yrashk yrashk commented Dec 5, 2022

Problem: inability to fine-tune transaction boundaries easily

Solution: implement an interface for sub-transactions

It's a fairly simplistic interface at this point, allowing choosing a mode of release on drop (commit by default).

This is an improved version of the original implementation in pgx-contrib-spiext
(https://github.com/supabase/pgx-contrib-spiext/blob/main/src/subtxn.rs)


I welcome feedback as the interface is somewhat opinionated (however, I tried to make it as palatable as possible, and its previous iteration in pgx-contrib-spiext went through a few rounds of improvements to be used in real extensions). I've tried to follow our recent work on SpiClient in spirit.

It'd be great to get additional scrutiny for the safety and soundness of the implementation.


A message to pgx users: my ability to actively contribute to pgx largely depends on your support. Please consider sponsoring my work

@yrashk yrashk force-pushed the sub-xact branch 2 times, most recently from d2412fe to eba8dc6 Compare December 5, 2022 15:49
Solution: implement an interface for sub-transactions

It's a fairly simplistic interface at this point and it allows choosing
a mode of release on drop (commit by default).

This is an improved version of the original implementation in
pgx-contrib-spiext
(https://github.com/supabase/pgx-contrib-spiext/blob/main/src/subtxn.rs)
@yrashk
Copy link
Contributor Author

yrashk commented Dec 11, 2022

Any feedback I can get on this from the maintainers? Thanks!

pgx/src/subxact.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 140 to 158
// This allows SubTransaction to be de-referenced to SpiClient
impl<'conn, const COMMIT: bool> Deref for SubTransaction<SpiClient<'conn>, COMMIT> {
type Target = SpiClient<'conn>;

fn deref(&self) -> &Self::Target {
self.parent.as_ref().unwrap()
}
}

// This allows a SubTransaction of a SubTransaction to be de-referenced to SpiClient
impl<Parent: SubTransactionExt, const COMMIT: bool> Deref
for SubTransaction<SubTransaction<Parent>, COMMIT>
{
type Target = Parent;

fn deref(&self) -> &Self::Target {
self.parent.as_ref().and_then(|p| p.parent.as_ref()).unwrap()
}
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Wouldn't it be more general for SubTransaction<T, COMMIT> to deref into T? Is there a problem with that approach? Too much recursion?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is how it was initially https://github.com/supabase/pgx-contrib-spiext/blob/main/src/subtxn.rs#L137-L143

However, this has prevented me from using SubTransaction<T: Deref<SpiClient>> so I had to resort to boxing: https://github.com/supabase/pgx-contrib-spiext/blob/develop/src/subtxn.rs#L169-L178

However, with this special case, I no longer need a Box

pgx/src/subxact.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pgx/src/subxact.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pgx/src/subxact.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pgx/src/subxact.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 5 to 8
/// Sub-transaction
///
/// Can be created by calling `SpiClient::sub_transaction`, `SubTransaction<Parent>::sub_transaction`
/// or any other implementation of `SubTransactionExt` and obtaining it as an argument to the provided closure.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My internal grammarian is trying to say the function names should be subtransaction (which is valid in English), whereas the type names should be SubTransaction, but that seems... somehow peculiar, given that normally those would normalize to either sub_transaction and SubTransaction like you have it here or subtransaction and Subtransaction.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I named it sub_transaction for consistency with SubTransaction. But ultimately I don't have a strong opinion about this.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

And Postgres calls them "SubTransactions" in their API.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I agree that the type/trait names should use SubTransaction. Maybe I will start using sub_transaction in anger and it will bug me enough to want to take the _ out, and I'll just let it be inconsistent-but-natural then. But otherwise it seems fine.

pgx/src/subxact.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 17 to 20
// The reason we are not calling this `released` as we're also using this flag when
// we convert between commit_on_drop and rollback_on_drop to ensure it doesn't get released
// on the drop of the original value.
should_release: bool,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"on the drop of the original value"... hm.

Comment on lines 99 to 109
fn into(mut self) -> SubTransaction<Parent, false> {
let result = SubTransaction {
memory_context: self.memory_context,
resource_owner: self.resource_owner,
should_release: self.should_release,
parent: self.parent.take(),
};
// Make sure original sub-transaction won't commit
self.should_release = false;
result
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, I see. We copy everything into a new SubTransaction and then let Drop run for the previous one.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yep. Does this resolve #912 (comment) or do you want to provide additional feedback on this?

It may be unnecessary.

Solution: simply derive it
Solution: name it Parent as it is what it is
Also, given `PgMemoryContexts` API is still somewhat rough, it may be
not a great idea to expose it.

Solution: remove it
Solution: provide some reference materials on it
@yrashk yrashk changed the base branch from master to develop December 13, 2022 23:40
It is only there so that we can move it out of manually copied type
that implements Drop

Solution: extract release logic into a separate trait
Copy link
Contributor

@eeeebbbbrrrr eeeebbbbrrrr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think in general this is okay. I've never used any of Postgres subtransaction facilities from C before, and haven't studied their docs, so I'm leaning heavily on the thought that you have.

That said, before we can merge I'd like to see two things...

  1. A lot of additional doc comment documentation in subxact.rs, from the module-level down. I think this needs some exposition around not only what it is, but how it interacts with the database, and how that might impact the user's code and design decisions.

  2. A new example that demonstrates using this, maybe in some kind of fabricated scenario that users could maybe adapt to their own purposes (ie, something a little more polished than, say, our "strings" example). And with that example, a nice README.md that covers topics around proper subxact handling.

This code itself isn't very complex, which is nice. But it's a brand new feature and I'd like it to not only be as immediately useful as possible to users, but also serve as an example of what a new feature PR ought to look like. ;)

Other Thoughts

  • I also wonder if/how this should interop with pgx' existing subact hooks support (see callbacks.rs/register_subxact_callback() and friends.
  • What needs to be said in docs (or done in code?) with regards to PgTryBuilder and subtransactions?
  • Is this also usable as-is by background workers? Is there an opportunity for expanding the existing bgworker example to show off subxact support?
  • I'm sure I'll come up with other stuff as we get this merged.

@@ -47,3 +47,6 @@ pub use crate::pg_sys::{
check_for_interrupts, debug1, debug2, debug3, debug4, debug5, ereport, error, function_name,
info, log, notice, warning, FATAL, PANIC,
};

// Sub-transactions
pub use crate::subxact::*;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably better to limit this to just the module: pub use crate::subxact;.

I think we're trying to be a little better about globbing everything into the current namespace.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am not sure this is the best. At the very least, I think we should consider pub use crate::subxact::{self, SubTransactionExt} for the sub-transaction functionality to be easily available.

// Remember the memory context before starting the sub-transaction
let ctx = PgMemoryContexts::CurrentMemoryContext.value();
// Remember resource owner before starting the sub-transaction
let resource_owner = unsafe { pg_sys::CurrentResourceOwner };
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think Jubilee means when might Postgres initially set (or later change) this and how are we certain it even has a valid value at this point in time?

@yrashk
Copy link
Contributor Author

yrashk commented Jan 2, 2023

Thank you for your feedback.

  • I will work on more documentation. I didn't want to invest time into that before we (at least somewhat) agreed on the approach to avoid re-documenting things.

  • I will write some examples as well. I don't see any reason why this won't be usable in background workers, as long as they are SPI-enabled. I can extend the example there.

  • PgTryBuilder thing is the most interesting here. I left this out of this PR but there's a case when you want to recover the parent even if your sub-transaction failed. Currently, the parent would be gone, which is not perfect. However, with a trivial addition of another crate-level SubTransactionExt-implementing type (similar to https://github.com/supabase/pgx-contrib-spiext/blob/develop/src/subtxn.rs#L202-L227) one can implement a wrapper around PgTryBuilder that would recover the parent in the event of failure. If you'd like that to be a part of this PR, I will be happy to amend it. Easier to show it in code than explain.

  • I have not yet considered register_subxact_callback interactions/interop. I'll think about it.

@yrashk
Copy link
Contributor Author

yrashk commented Jan 14, 2023

Updated subtransactions to work on recent develop. I will now work on docs/examples and other concerns listed above.

We can do better

Solution: export only most common types
@eeeebbbbrrrr
Copy link
Contributor

@yrashk are you still planning on taking this over the finish line?

@yrashk
Copy link
Contributor Author

yrashk commented Mar 6, 2023

Yes, I've discovered some issues with the API that make its usability reduced (mostly related to mutability) when porting my "contrib" crate to use this core and extending it to essentially allow for error recovery without losing the entire subtransaction stack.

I'm working on rethinking this and attempting to see what I need to change in the core of this PR to make this possible.

@eeeebbbbrrrr
Copy link
Contributor

Fair enough. Subxacts are definitely pretty hard to reason about.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants