op_destroy was assuming we never yield IO from
BTreeCursor::btree_destroy(), so every so often it would just not
complete the procedure and leave dangling pages in the database
Closes#3608Closes#3618
op_destroy was assuming we never yield IO from BTreeCursor::btree_destroy(),
so every so often it would just not complete the procedure and leave
dangling pages in the database
Yield is a completion that does not allocate any inner state. By design
it is completed from the start and has no errors. This allows lightly
yield without allocating any locks nor heap allocate inner state.
Reviewed-by: Jussi Saurio <jussi.saurio@gmail.com>
Closes#3616
Yield is a completion that does not allocate any inner state. By design
it is completed from the start and has no errors. This allows lightly
yield without allocating any locks nor heap allocate inner state.
Yield is a completion that does not allocate any inner state. By design
it is completed from the start and has no errors. This allows lightly
yield without allocating any locks nor heap allocate inner state.
I simplified `Interactions` generation code to first check the possible
queries we can generate and then create a Weighted Distribution to
generate `Query` and `Property`. This change allows us to not generate
certain types of queries if we have no tables, as it is not sound for
the Simulator to generate an `Update` query if there are no tables in
the database. I made this change for correctness and because I want to
introduce schema changes to the simulator and this is necessary.
Also, there is the additional benefit of us allocating less memory,
doing static function dispatch instead of creating closures all the time
for generation, and the code, in my opinion, being more readable.
Reviewed-by: Jussi Saurio <jussi.saurio@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: bit-aloo (@Shourya742)
Closes#3585
This PR add proper program abort in case of unfinished statement reset
and interruption.
Also, this PR makes rollback methods non-failing because otherwise of
their callers usually unclear (if rollback failed - what is the state of
statement/connection/transaction?)
Reviewed-by: Preston Thorpe <preston@turso.tech>
Closes#3591
There is currently a bug found in our materialized view implementation
that happens when we delete a row, and then re-insert another row with
the same primary key.
Our insert code needs to detect updates and generate a DELETE + INSERT.
But in this case, after the initial DELETE, the fresh insert generates
another delete.
We ended up with the wrong response for aggregations (and I am pretty
sure even filter-only views would manifest the bug as well), where
groups that should still be present just disappeared because of the
extra delete.
A new test case is added that fails without the fix.
Closes#3601
There is currently a bug found in our materialized view implementation
that happens when we delete a row, and then re-insert another row with
the same primary key.
Our insert code needs to detect updates and generate a DELETE +
INSERT. But in this case, after the initial DELETE, the fresh insert
generates another delete.
We ended up with the wrong response for aggregations (and I am pretty
sure even filter-only views would manifest the bug as well), where
groups that should still be present just disappeared because of the
extra delete.
A new test case is added that fails without the fix.
I added the `Once` before so fix a bug, but it was a bit hackery. We can
`get_or_init` to achieve the same purpose, and the code becomes much
cleaner. `get_or_init` guarantees the init will happen only once as
well.
Reviewed-by: Preston Thorpe <preston@turso.tech>
Reviewed-by: bit-aloo (@Shourya742)
Closes#3578
