Fix: Resolve grafting bugs #6228
Open
+51
−44
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
dimitrovmaksim
force-pushed
the
fix/resolve-grafting-bugs
branch
from
0738b0e to
103da40
Compare
dimitrovmaksim
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Maksim Dimitrov <dimitrov.maksim@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Maksim Dimitrov <dimitrov.maksim@gmail.com>
dimitrovmaksim
force-pushed
the
fix/resolve-grafting-bugs
branch
from
103da40 to
8926e4b
Compare
lutter
requested changes
Jan 12, 2026
| column: &str, | ||
| ) -> Result<Vec<i64>, StoreError> { | ||
| const QUERY: &str = "select histogram_bounds::text::int8[] bounds \ | ||
| const QUERY: &str = "select coalesce(histogram_bounds::text::int8[], '{}'::int8[]) as bounds \ |
| self.primary_conn() | ||
| .await? | ||
| .record_active_copy(graft_base.site.as_ref(), site.as_ref()) | ||
| .record_active_copy(graft_base_layout.site.as_ref(), site.as_ref()) |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this also happen in the transaction above? Otherwise, can't we end up in a situation where we set up everything except recording the active copy if graph-node gets killed atthe wrong moment?
| let base_layout = self.layout(graft_base).await?; | ||
| let entities_with_causality_region = | ||
| deployment.manifest.entities_with_causality_region.clone(); | ||
| let catalog = Catalog::for_tests( |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is wrong - for_tests doesn't actually check the database for its capabilities (and the method should be marked as #[cfg(debug_assertions)]). Instead, this needs to use Catalog::for_creation where the connection is a connection to the shard in which we will create the subgraph. It's best to create the catalog object outside of this transaction so that we don't hold multiple db connections at once.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Resolves #6220, resolves #6221
Issue: #6220
Currently, the
can_copy_fromvalidation is only performed when a deployment is considered new—that is, when no existingdeployment_schemarecord exists for the given Qm hash.In the code here, the layout is assigned if the deployment is new. If a
deployment_schemarecord already exists, the code assumes the deployment was previously created and copied successfully, and therefore setsgraft_base_layouttoNone.However, if
can_copy_fromlater fails (see here), the transaction rolls back all changes except the record in thedeployment_schemastable. This leaves the deployment in a partially created state and copy was never attemptedWhen the same deployment is attempted again, it is no longer treated as new. As a result,
graft_base_layoutis set toNone, and thecan_copy_fromcheck is skipped. The deployment then proceeds as if it were valid, the copy process starts, but it fails again—ultimately leaving the deployment stuck in a "never synced" state.What this PR changes:
Move the
can_copy_fromcheck and the site allocation in a transaction so a failing check fully rolls back the allocation.Remove the duplicate/late compatibility check from deployment_store.rs
Use Catalog + Layout::new(...) to construct the layout and run layout.can_copy_from(&base_layout) before committing.
Minor cleanups (string formatting improvements, unused variables removed).
Removed the
can_copy_fromcheck fromcopy_deploymentbecause it passed the source layout as the graft base and then compared it against the destination layout, which seems as a redundant check since the two layouts are the same.Result
Now every re-deploy of a failed deployment should behave as a brand new deployment, and the
if !existscheck should behave correctly.Note: This approach may result in
deployment_schemas_id_seqgaps