This change allows one to query Pilosa fields and indexes directly
with integer row and column ids even when key translation is
enabled. This was previously disallowed during query
translation... I'm not sure why, but it can be quite useful for
debugging and testing to be able to use IDs directly. I have a test in
go-pilosa which uses this functionality.
I also simplified a bunch of the test code which was of the form:
```
else {
if blah {
}
}
```
to be:
```
else if blah {
```
which I think is pretty harmless.
I also changed a snapshot log line that has been bugging me to be
Debug level so that it isn't generating lots of useless logs for long
running Pilosa instances.
The request for a non-read lock blocks until all existing read
locks exit, meaning that if an Immediate operation is already
going for a fragment, an Enqueue operation will hang forever
holding the fragment's lock, while the Immediate operation has
probably relinquished the fragment's lock to wait for the
queue worker to process it. But the queue worker can't process
it, because the incoming Enqueue still holds the fragment's
lock. Solution: Don't block the Enqueue operation like that.
It shouldn't coexist with things that actually change the sq
channels, like Stop(), but it is fine for it to coexist with
other queue operations.
The snapshot queue needs a bit more subtlety. In some cases,
we really do want to do a snapshot right now -- these shouldn't
have to wait for possibly a hundred or more other snapshots
to complete.
In other cases, we don't really care that much whether we do
a snapshot, and just dropping it is probably fine.
To accommodate this, we distinguish between "urgent" and
"normal" snapshots, and between "Immediate" (does an urgent
snapshot, waits for it) and "Enqueue" (might enqueue a snapshot
but *also might not* if we're already busy). There's a
corresponding "Await" to wait for a snapshot, if one is
pending, but not if one isn't.
We also have a background scan that checks the holder. It will
scan pretty actively when it's finding fragments that need
snapshots (no enqueued snapshot, opN > MaxOpN). It pauses
for a second after every hundred fragments that didn't need
snapshots, and for a minute after each holder scan that didn't
find any. So, if you don't need snapshots, it does basically
nothing, if you do, it'll be moderately aggressive about
submitting tasks -- but it always waits if there's *any*
requested snapshots in the queues.
Updates since initial draft:
Check results from Await more consistently, and in one case, use Immediate
instead and then check its error.
Fix a race condition. The race condition comes about if:
1. You have a limited enough worker pool that this can happen.
(In testing we tend to have a worker pool of 1.)
2. A fragment is in the normal, non-urgent, queue already.
3. An immediate request comes in for that fragment. This always
happens *with the fragment lock held*.
4. A worker thread grabs that fragment from the queue.
5. The worker thread now waits on the lock. Meanwhile, the
immediate request blocks on sending the fragment to the urgent
queue.
6. The worker can't read the urgent queue, and the immediate
request can't send it, so the immediate request can't proceed.
What's supposed to happen is that the immediate request sends
the thing, and gets into Await(), which sleeps on a condition
variable using the lock, which is to say, releases the lock.
The obvious resolution is to let go of the lock, send the
message, and then reclaim the lock. But then we have the
possibility that the message sent ends up with a timestamp
right after a snapshot that happened *after* the Immediate
request was started. Oops. So we create the request, then let
go of the lock, then send the request, then reclaim the lock
and go into the Await state. All is well.
This is on top of more general use of wait groups, etcetera,
to allow us to ensure that any holder scans terminate *before*
we close the channels they might otherwise be trying to write to.
So, shutdown process is now:
* grab lock on queue (workers and scanners don't use the lock)
* mark snapshotqueue done
* wait for holder scans to complete/exit
* close and nil out all the channels
* release lock
Anything trying to submit to this needs to hold the lock, unless
it's a holder scan, so either it got the lock before we did and already
submitted the thing, or it will get the lock after this and not find
a channel to write to; it's just the holder scanner that has an
ongoing thing that might have started a write to the channel *without*
a lock held, because it's expected that it might have to wait minutes
or hours before the write will complete because it's a background task.
Also, rework the background holder scan to grab lists of
indexes/fields/views/fragments, then scan the grabbed/copied lists,
rather than iterating over maps, allowing us to grab the lock when
we're about to access a thing and let it go when done.
There might be a simpler/cleaner way to do this but opinions on how
safe it is are very mixed, so in the mean time, I'm making the range
behavior not depend at all on there being no writes to the various tiers
of holder/index/view/fragment during the background scans.
