Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE added a comment.
Proposed procedure, refined from @hoo’s comment:
- for each sitelink:
- get the database lock, with the site + title as name
- if we fail to acquire it, report conflict (with unknown other item)
- getWithSetCallback the memcached “lock”, with the site + title as key,
the item ID as the value, and a low TTL (60 seconds?)
- if the returned value is not the item ID, load the other item (from the
primary DB); if it indeed has a sitelink conflict, report conflict
- on transaction commit, free the database lock
Rationale:
- The database lock is the main protection. If the connection drops while we
hold the lock, MediaWiki will not automatically reconnect – so if the
connection drops right after we get the lock, then the save will fail, which is
good because otherwise we might save a conflicting item. However, we don’t want
this to happen during the secondary data updates (where `items_per_site` is
updated), which is why we release the lock on transaction commit.
- The memcached “lock” bridges the gap between the commit of the main
transaction and the secondary data update that writes the sitelinks to
`items_per_site` (at which point the regular conflict detection can pick them
up, see `SqlSiteLinkConflictLookup`). The case that two requests concurrently
get the key from memcached, see that it’s free, and each write their item ID to
memcached, is mostly prevented by the database lock.
- We write the item ID to memcached, and check the mentioned item before
reporting a conflict, to avoid a scenario where a sitelink is quickly added,
removed, and then added to another item (we want to allow it on the other item,
not detect that as a conflict).
A tiny race condition is still possible with this scheme, I believe:
- request A gets the database lock
- request A’s database connection dies, releasing the lock
- request A gets the value from memcached, sees it’s empty
- request B gets the database lock
- request B gets the value from memcached, sees it’s empty
- request B writes its item ID to memcached
- request B proceeds to save the item and release the database lock
- request A writes its item ID to memcached
- request A tries to save the item, fails because the connection died (and
won’t be automatically restored, because a lock was held)
- request C gets the database lock
- request C gets the value from memcached, sees request A’s item ID
- request C tries to get request A’s item, fails because request A never
managed to save its item
- request C believes there is no conflict, saves the item
- undetected conflict between request B and C
I can’t think of a realistic way to solve this, and I think we can probably
just ignore it: in practice, it should be very unlikely. (If we didn’t write
the item ID to memcached, and instead assumed that the presence of any key
means a conflict, that would prevent this issue, but block more legitimate
edits than we want, I believe.)
TASK DETAIL
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T291377
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To: Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE
Cc: Aklapper, hoo, Lea_Lacroix_WMDE, Mohammed_Sadat_WMDE, Lydia_Pintscher,
Addshore, Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE, Invadibot, maantietaja, Akuckartz, Iflorez,
alaa_wmde, Nandana, lucamauri, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden,
LawExplorer, _jensen, rosalieper, Scott_WUaS, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Mbch331
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-bugs mailing list -- wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-bugs-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
