[10.0] Remove RowExclusiveLock on exception_rule #1647
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This was referenced Aug 14, 2019
sebalix
approved these changes
Aug 14, 2019
florian-dacosta
approved these changes
Aug 14, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot for the fix @guewen
It seems fine to me.
I agree these concurrent update issues have to be fixed and we'll eventually fix some other performance issue in the future if necessary, having this issue in mind.
The goal of the modified method is to create or remove the relationship (in the M2m relation tabel) between the tested model (such as sale_order) and the exception rules. When the ORM writes on ExceptionRule.sale_ids (using the example of sale_exception), it will first proceeds with these updates: * an UPDATE on exception_rule to set the write_date * INSERT or DELETE on the relation table * but then, as "write" is called on the exception rule, the ORM will trigger the api.depends to recompute all the "main_exception_ids" of the records (sales, ...) related to it, leading to an UPDATE for each sale order We end up with RowExclusiveLock on such records: * All the records of the relation table added / deleted for the current sale order * All the records of exception_rule matching the current sale order * All the records of sale_order related to the exception rules matching the current sale order The first one is expected, the next 2 are not. We can remove the lock on the exception_rule table by removing `_log_access`, however in any case, the main_exception_ids computed field will continue to lock many sale orders, effectively preventing 2 sales orders with the same exception to be confirmed at the same time. Reversing the write by writing on SaleOrder instead of ExceptionRule fixes the 2 unexpected locks. It should not result in more queries: the "to remove" part generates a DELETE on the relation table for the rule to remove and the "to add" part generates an INSERT for the rule to add, both will be exactly the same in both cases. Related to OCA#1642 Replaces OCA#1638
guewen
force-pushed
the
10.0-base_exception-concurrent-errors
branch
from
248da11
to
6a301a1
Compare
|
Squashed the fixup |
|
This PR has the |
|
/ocabot merge minor |
|
On my way to merge this fine PR! |
OCA-git-bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2019
|
Congratulations, your PR was merged at 8df0132. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️ |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The goal of the modified method is to create or remove the relationship
(in the M2m relation tabel) between the tested model (such as
sale_order) and the exception rules. When the ORM writes on
ExceptionRule.sale_ids (using the example of sale_exception), it will
first proceeds with these updates:
trigger the api.depends to recompute all the "main_exception_ids"
of the records (sales, ...) related to it, leading to an UPDATE
for each sale order
We end up with RowExclusiveLock on such records:
sale order
the current sale order
The first one is expected, the next 2 are not. We can remove the lock on
the exception_rule table by removing
_log_access, however in any case,the main_exception_ids computed field will continue to lock many sale
orders, effectively preventing 2 sales orders with the same exception
to be confirmed at the same time.
Reversing the write by writing on SaleOrder instead of ExceptionRule
fixes the 2 unexpected locks. It should not result in more queries: the
"to remove" part generates one DELETE on the relation table for the rule
to remove and the "to add" part generates one INSERT (with unnest) for the rule to add,
both will be exactly the same in both cases.
Related to #1642
Replaces #1638