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

opt: fix error due to unsupported comparison for partitioned secondary index #86173

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 16, 2022

Conversation

rytaft
Copy link
Collaborator

@rytaft rytaft commented Aug 15, 2022

This commit fixes a bug where we were attempting to find the locality of the
partitions in a secondary index, but we passed the incorrect index ordinal to
the function IndexPartitionLocality.

Fixes #86168

Release justification: Category 3: Fixes for high-priority or high-severity bugs in existing functionality

Release note (bug fix): Fixed a bug that existed on v22.1.0-v22.1.5, where
attempting to select data from a table that had different partitioning columns
used for the primary and secondary indexes could cause an error. This occured
if the primary index had zone configurations applied to the index partitions
with different regions for different partitions, and the secondary index had a
different column type than the primary index for its partitioning column(s).

…y index

This commit fixes a bug where we were attempting to find the locality of the
partitions in a secondary index, but we passed the incorrect index ordinal to
the function IndexPartitionLocality.

Fixes cockroachdb#86168

Release note (bug fix): Fixed a bug that existed on v22.1.0-v22.1.5, where
attempting to select data from a table that had different partitioning columns
used for the primary and secondary indexes could cause an error. This occured
if the primary index had zone configurations applied to the index partitions
with different regions for different partitions, and the secondary index had a
different column type than the primary index for its partitioning column(s).
@rytaft rytaft requested review from msirek and michae2 August 15, 2022 20:10
@rytaft rytaft requested a review from a team as a code owner August 15, 2022 20:10
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

Copy link
Collaborator

@michae2 michae2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:lgtm: Nice!

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @msirek)

@michae2
Copy link
Collaborator

michae2 commented Aug 15, 2022

(Should this have a backport tag?)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@rytaft rytaft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TFTR!

(Should this have a backport tag?)

Yep, added.

bors r+

Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @msirek)

@craig
Copy link
Contributor

craig bot commented Aug 16, 2022

Build failed (retrying...):

@craig
Copy link
Contributor

craig bot commented Aug 16, 2022

Build succeeded:

@craig craig bot merged commit b1bc502 into cockroachdb:master Aug 16, 2022
@blathers-crl
Copy link

blathers-crl bot commented Aug 16, 2022

Encountered an error creating backports. Some common things that can go wrong:

  1. The backport branch might have already existed.
  2. There was a merge conflict.
  3. The backport branch contained merge commits.

You might need to create your backport manually using the backport tool.


error creating merge commit from 6b452bc to blathers/backport-release-22.1-86173: POST https://api.github.com/repos/cockroachdb/cockroach/merges: 409 Merge conflict []

you may need to manually resolve merge conflicts with the backport tool.

Backport to branch 22.1.x failed. See errors above.


🦉 Hoot! I am a Blathers, a bot for CockroachDB. My owner is otan.

@mgartner
Copy link
Collaborator

Nice find!!!

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