Skip to content

TxnLockNotFound #315

Open
Open
@gfreezy

Description

@gfreezy
Contributor
#[tokio::main]
async fn main() -> Result<()> {
    let txn_client = TransactionClient::new(vec!["127.0.0.1:2379"]).await?;
    let mut txn = txn_client.begin_optimistic().await.unwrap();
    let key = "aa".to_owned();
    txn.insert(key.clone(), "value".to_owned()).await.unwrap();
    txn.delete(key.clone()).await.unwrap();
    txn.commit().await.unwrap();
    Ok(())
}

The above code raise the following error:

thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: StringError("KeyError { locked: None, retryable: \"Error(Txn(Error(Mvcc(Error(TxnLockNotFound { start_ts: TimeStamp(427084398190919681), commit_ts: TimeStamp(427084398190919682), key: [97, 97] })))))\", abort: \"\", conflict: None, already_exist: None, deadlock: None, commit_ts_expired: None, txn_not_found: None, commit_ts_too_large: None }")', src/main.rs:347:24
stack backtrace:
   0: rust_begin_unwind
             at /rustc/ae90dcf0207c57c3034f00b07048d63f8b2363c8/library/std/src/panicking.rs:517:5
   1: core::panicking::panic_fmt
             at /rustc/ae90dcf0207c57c3034f00b07048d63f8b2363c8/library/core/src/panicking.rs:93:14
   2: core::result::unwrap_failed
             at /rustc/ae90dcf0207c57c3034f00b07048d63f8b2363c8/library/core/src/result.rs:1617:5
   3: core::result::Result<T,E>::unwrap
             at /rustc/ae90dcf0207c57c3034f00b07048d63f8b2363c8/library/core/src/result.rs:1299:23
   4: scratch::main::{{closure}}
             at ./src/main.rs:347:5
   5: <core::future::from_generator::GenFuture<T> as core::future::future::Future>::poll
             at /rustc/ae90dcf0207c57c3034f00b07048d63f8b2363c8/library/core/src/future/mod.rs:80:19
   6: tokio::park::thread::CachedParkThread::block_on::{{closure}}
             at /Users/feichao/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/tokio-1.10.0/src/park/thread.rs:263:54
   7: tokio::coop::with_budget::{{closure}}
             at /Users/feichao/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/tokio-1.10.0/src/coop.rs:106:9
   8: std::thread::local::LocalKey<T>::try_with
             at /rustc/ae90dcf0207c57c3034f00b07048d63f8b2363c8/library/std/src/thread/local.rs:399:16
   9: std::thread::local::LocalKey<T>::with
             at /rustc/ae90dcf0207c57c3034f00b07048d63f8b2363c8/library/std/src/thread/local.rs:375:9
  10: tokio::coop::with_budget
             at /Users/feichao/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/tokio-1.10.0/src/coop.rs:99:5
  11: tokio::coop::budget
             at /Users/feichao/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/tokio-1.10.0/src/coop.rs:76:5
  12: tokio::park::thread::CachedParkThread::block_on
             at /Users/feichao/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/tokio-1.10.0/src/park/thread.rs:263:31
  13: tokio::runtime::enter::Enter::block_on
             at /Users/feichao/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/tokio-1.10.0/src/runtime/enter.rs:151:13
  14: tokio::runtime::thread_pool::ThreadPool::block_on
             at /Users/feichao/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/tokio-1.10.0/src/runtime/thread_pool/mod.rs:71:9
  15: tokio::runtime::Runtime::block_on
             at /Users/feichao/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/tokio-1.10.0/src/runtime/mod.rs:452:43
  16: scratch::main
             at ./src/main.rs:348:5
  17: core::ops::function::FnOnce::call_once
             at /rustc/ae90dcf0207c57c3034f00b07048d63f8b2363c8/library/core/src/ops/function.rs:227:5

Tikv setup:

image

Activity

ekexium

ekexium commented on Aug 18, 2021

@ekexium
Collaborator

Which version are you using?

Thanks for your feedback! Confirmed it's a bug. TiKV doesn't actually write mutations whose op are CheckNotExists. client-rust mistakenly treats it the same way as other operations.

added
bugSomething isn't working
good first issueDenotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines.
on Aug 18, 2021
gfreezy

gfreezy commented on Aug 18, 2021

@gfreezy
ContributorAuthor

Is it a TiKV bug or client-rust's ?

ekexium

ekexium commented on Aug 18, 2021

@ekexium
Collaborator

It's cilent-rust's

gfreezy

gfreezy commented on Aug 18, 2021

@gfreezy
ContributorAuthor

I'd like to try fixing the bug. Any Docs or guide how to do it?

ekexium

ekexium commented on Aug 18, 2021

@ekexium
Collaborator

CheckNotExists is checked in the prewrite phase and should not appear in the commit phase. So I think there are basically two things to do:

  1. When we set the primary key of a transaction, the corresponding operation must not be CheckNotExists.
  2. We should filter out mutations with CheckNotExists in the commit phase.
gfreezy

gfreezy commented on Aug 24, 2021

@gfreezy
ContributorAuthor

What does primary key means in a tikv transaction?

ekexium

ekexium commented on Aug 24, 2021

@ekexium
Collaborator

The primary key can be viewed as a representative of the transaction. Each transaction that needs to write some key-values must have a primary key.

In client-rust, the primary key of a transaction is set at

primary_key: Option<Key>,

There is a difference in how primary keys are set between TiDB(client-go) and client-rust. cilent-go doesn't set the primary key until committing. client-rust, in the current implementation, can set the primary key when locking keys. I think we may need to consider whether there is a better way to do this.

gfreezy

gfreezy commented on Aug 25, 2021

@gfreezy
ContributorAuthor

Should we change the way how primary key is set to be the same as go?

ekexium

ekexium commented on Aug 25, 2021

@ekexium
Collaborator

Should we change the way how primary key is set to be the same as go?

That's one way to fix the issue. But it may introduce other subtleties. For example, pessimistic lock requests require a primary key, even when the transaction isn't ready to commit. Maybe we can temporarily set the PK as the key that needs to be locked? We must carefully reason its correctness.

I don't have a simple solution for now. @andylokandy do you have any good ideas?

andylokandy

andylokandy commented on Jul 10, 2023

@andylokandy
Collaborator

@ekexium I have a question about the case this PR is going to resolve: what should the PK be if a transaction's mutations contain only one CheckNotExist? e.g.: begin, insert('k1'), delete('k1'), commit

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    bugSomething isn't workinggood first issueDenotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

      Participants

      @gfreezy@andylokandy@ekexium

      Issue actions

        TxnLockNotFound · Issue #315 · tikv/client-rust