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

refactor: further clarify types of tables #19539

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 29, 2024

Conversation

xxchan
Copy link
Member

@xxchan xxchan commented Nov 22, 2024

I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

follow up of #19510.
We've commented that TableCatalog contains different kinds of tables. In this PR we highlight user_tables (I think this name is not very cool, but cannot come up with a better one.)

Checklist

  • I have written necessary rustdoc comments
  • I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
  • I have added test labels as necessary. See details.
  • I have added fuzzing tests or opened an issue to track them. (Optional, recommended for new SQL features Sqlsmith: Sql feature generation #7934).
  • My PR contains breaking changes. (If it deprecates some features, please create a tracking issue to remove them in the future).
  • All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)
  • My PR changes performance-critical code. (Please run macro/micro-benchmarks and show the results.)
  • My PR contains critical fixes that are necessary to be merged into the latest release. (Please check out the details)

Documentation

  • My PR needs documentation updates. (Please use the Release note section below to summarize the impact on users)

Release note

If this PR includes changes that directly affect users or other significant modifications relevant to the community, kindly draft a release note to provide a concise summary of these changes. Please prioritize highlighting the impact these changes will have on users.

Copy link
Member Author

xxchan commented Nov 22, 2024

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

@xxchan xxchan requested a review from st1page November 22, 2024 08:37
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ pub async fn handle_drop_schema(
};
match mode {
Some(DropMode::Restrict) | None => {
if let Some(table) = schema.iter_table().next() {
if let Some(table) = schema.iter_user_table().next() {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks somehow wrong (but we prevented error somewhere else...)

dev=> create schema s;
dev=> create materialized view s.mv as select  1 as x;
dev=> drop schema s;
ERROR:  Failed to run the query

Caused by:
  Permission denied: PermissionDenied: The schema is not empty, try dropping them first


dev=> create table s.t (x int);
CREATE_TABLE
dev=> drop schema s;
ERROR:  Failed to run the query

Caused by these errors (recent errors listed first):
  1: Catalog error
  2: cannot drop schema s because table t depend on it

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Handled on meta here

/// `ensure_schema_empty` ensures that the schema is empty, used by `DROP SCHEMA`.
pub async fn ensure_schema_empty<C>(schema_id: SchemaId, db: &C) -> MetaResult<()>
where
C: ConnectionTrait,
{
let count = Object::find()
.filter(object::Column::SchemaId.eq(Some(schema_id)))
.count(db)
.await?;
if count != 0 {
return Err(MetaError::permission_denied("schema is not empty"));
}
Ok(())
}

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we simply remove the check on frontend? 🤔 cc @yezizp2012

@xxchan xxchan marked this pull request as ready for review November 22, 2024 08:52
@xxchan xxchan requested a review from BugenZhao November 22, 2024 09:10
@xxchan xxchan force-pushed the 11-22-refactor_further_clarify_types_of_tables branch 2 times, most recently from ff91b0e to 84cbacf Compare November 25, 2024 03:24
Copy link
Member

@BugenZhao BugenZhao left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this name is not very cool, but cannot come up with a better one.

+1.

Shall we consider making it more type-safe, like, introducing wrappers such as UserTableCatalog or MaterializedViewCatalog and check the table_type field when creating them.

@BugenZhao
Copy link
Member

Would you also help to review other methods within SchemaCatalog? For example, iter_all and iter_valid_table looks confusing.

@xxchan xxchan force-pushed the 11-22-refactor_further_clarify_types_of_tables branch from 84cbacf to 56ef3c2 Compare November 28, 2024 08:42
@xxchan xxchan enabled auto-merge November 28, 2024 08:47
Signed-off-by: xxchan <[email protected]>
@graphite-app graphite-app bot requested a review from a team November 29, 2024 08:45
@xxchan xxchan added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 29, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit d6cf971 Nov 29, 2024
29 of 30 checks passed
@xxchan xxchan deleted the 11-22-refactor_further_clarify_types_of_tables branch November 29, 2024 09:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants