in #2521, I messed up and introduced improper calculation of the current
checkpoint's max safe frame (mostly due to incorrect comments that I had
left on the method).
The confusion partially stems from our lack of Busy handling at the
moment, but essentially when determining the max safe frame for all
readers, for passive mode we cannot simply `break` out of the loop when
we find a reader with a lower read mark than we have, because _another_
reader might have an even _lower_ read mark, and we could proceed with
the first mark < shared_max.
And for !passive modes, we still attempt to backfill with the same lower
frame, we just return `Busy` at the end, after backfilling what we can
(we just don't reset the log for restart/truncate).
Most of the changes in this PR is just the renaming the fields of
Checkpoint Result, because the names were confusing
Closes#2560
We have to update the Transaction State before checking for the Schema
Cookie so that we can rollback the transaction later on correctly.
Closes#2535Closes#2549
1. We spend a lot of time in `cell_get_raw_region` in the balancing
routine, and especially calling `contents.page_type()` there a lot, so
extract a version that can take some precomputed arguments so those
don't have to be redundantly computed multiple times for successive
calls where those values are going to be the same
2. Avoid calling `self.usable_space()` in a loop in
`insert_into_page()`.
3. Avoid accessing `pages_in_frames` lock if we're not going to modify
it
main improvement is to the "insert 100 rows" bench which ends up doing
balancing a lot:
```
Insert rows in batches/limbo_insert_1_rows
time: [22.856 µs 24.342 µs 27.496 µs]
change: [-3.3579% +15.495% +67.671%] (p = 0.62 > 0.05)
No change in performance detected.
Benchmarking Insert rows in batches/limbo_insert_10_rows: Collecting 100 samples in estim
Insert rows in batches/limbo_insert_10_rows
time: [32.196 µs 32.604 µs 32.981 µs]
change: [+1.3253% +2.9177% +4.5863%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
Performance has regressed.
Insert rows in batches/limbo_insert_100_rows
time: [89.425 µs 92.105 µs 96.304 µs]
change: [-18.317% -13.605% -9.1022%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
Performance has improved.
```
Reviewed-by: Preston Thorpe <preston@turso.tech>
Closes#2483
Trying to support this is unnecessary and just adds branches and bit ops
when we could just round the allocation up or down
Reviewed-by: Jussi Saurio <jussi.saurio@gmail.com>
Closes#2497
Problem:
A very easy source of bugs is to mistakenly use e.g. PageContent::read_u16()
instead of PageContent::read_u16_no_offset(). The difference between the two
is that `read_u16()` adds 100 bytes to the requested byte offset if and only if
the page in question is page 1, which contains a 100-byte database header.
Case in point: see #2491.
Observation:
In all of the cases where we want to read from or write to a page "header-sensitively",
those reads/writes are to so-called "well known offsets", e.g. specific bytes in a btree
page header.
In all other cases, the "no-offset" versions, i.e. the ones taking the absolute byte offset
as parameter, should be used.
Solution:
1. Make all the offset-sensitive versions (read_u16() and friends) private methods of
`PageContent`.
2. Expose dedicated methods for things like updating rightmost pointer, updating fragmented
bytes count and so on, and use them instead of the plain read/write methods universally.
`defragment_page_fast()` incorrectly didn't use the version of
read/write methods on `PageContent` that does NOT add the 100 byte
database header into the requested byte offset.
this resulted in defragment of page 1 in reading 2nd/3rd freeblocks
from the wrong offset and writing cell offsets to the wrong location.
