Drizzle still has a number of quirks inherited from the MySQL Storage Engine API (e.g. BLOBs, row buffer, CREATE SELECT and lack of DDL transaction boundaries, key tuple format). One of the things we fixed a long time ago was to have proper methods for StorageEngines to be called for: startTransaction, startStatement, endStatement, commit and rollback.
If you’ve had to implement a transactional storage engine in MySQL you will be well aware of the pattern of “in every Storage Engine/handler call: if transaction doesn’t exist, begin.” We’ve tried to fix this in the Drizzle API for a number of reasons. I think having this obvious set of calls will make the API a lot easier to understand. I am also very interested in making things much easier to prove correct.
A while ago I spotted Bug 587772, which was the READ COMMITTED isolation level not working correctly with InnoDB. It turns out that the most basic example for READ COMMITTED failed. Hrrm… this is no good. It worked on MySQL, so this was certainly something that we broke. What was more worrying is that there wasn’t a test for this in the test suite (and at the time I couldn’t find one in the MySQL test suite either, so I think we inherited the missing test).
I recently started delving in, actually going to solve this. I noticed something worrying, endStatement wasn’t being called, which is where the innobase plugin would release the read view that it used for the statement. You’d think that it would grab a new one on startStatement, but because of the previous design of the API (remember “if txn isn’t started, start it!”) this alsoÂ happenedÂ for getting the read view for the statement… so we instead got a REPEATABLE READ isolation level.
I wanted a test.
Previously, I’ve created a dummy storage engine (tableprototester) and used it to test the server code for reading the table protobuf message. I thought about doing a Storage Engine for this problem too, basically looking at the calls to the Storage Engine as transitions between states in a state machine.
A basic view of a transaction could be:
By coding up a data structure of allowable state transitions, a small function to assert() on invalid transitions and enough of the boilerplate to make the engine “work”, I was able to hit an assert() exactly where I’d expected it: at an invalid transition from START STATEMENT to COMMIT.
To fix the initial bug (READ COMMITTED not working), I filled in a few state transitions for the system as a whole that aren’t quite correct. From the diagram below, you can quite obviously see where the obvious bugs are (it helps that I’ve coloured them red):
I wish to expand this in the future to cover Cursor as well. It will also be useful to ensure that DDL can be wrapped in transactions. Not to mention the last few HTON flags that exist (and should likely go away).
To generate the diagrams, I just wrote a little utility to dump out the state transitions in dot, using it to generate the diagrams.