databasev2 4 part A, task 6. Mostly documentation, plus one real fix the
full battery caught.
THE FIX. The drain held EVERY DB reply until the barrier — including
reads, which stage nothing and have no stake in durability. That parked
readers behind an fsync for no reason: durable.sN.mixread.p99 rose from
~1043us to 4057us. Only a statement that actually staged a record now has
its reply held. Caught by the gate, not by review.
THE TRADE, recorded rather than smoothed over. What remains is inherent: a
barrier blocks the owner shard LONGER (more records per fsync) though LESS
OFTEN, so anything queued behind one waits. Three full runs of the same
build gave durable.sN.mixread.p99 of 1043 / 2318 / 4147us and wmix.p99 of
8758 / 20000us — a 2-4x spread with the box near idle. So part A buys ~3x
write throughput at the cost of a longer, noisier tail on the owner shard,
and that is the strongest argument for part B (submit and keep serving).
- durable.sN.*.p99us tolerance widened to 100% WITH the reason in the
code: a 2-4x-variable tail gated at 50% gates the disk, not the engine.
The floor is the real guard and is not slack — mixread's (4172us) came
within 25us of tripping on the worst run. Baseline refreshed; a fresh
full run then passed 106 checks 0 failures
EXIT STATUS MOVED 3 -> 74 (sysexits EX_IOERR). 3 and 4 are already used by
SAMPLES for their own meanings — db-bench's own `verify` exits 3 on a
checksum mismatch, and it is the gate that exercises durability, so a
durability abort exiting 3 would have been indistinguishable from the
mismatch it should help diagnose. The low range belongs to programs.
Docs:
- story: progress, the payoff measured two ways, the cost side, criteria
split met/outstanding, and a "part B — its premise changed" section:
it was justified by "close the 66x gap", but that gap is two problems
and only the concurrent one was a batching problem
- board: standup entry in the six-question shape; both databasev2 4 rows
rewritten. They had said "close the 66x gap" — recorded as MIS-STATED
rather than quietly renumbered
- 00-wob-format.md and 04-db-binding.md: the normative failure contract
("a failed WAL commit traps WO_T_IO after un-applying the row") was
false; corrected, along with the tick-scoped group commit that never
happened
- database/src/CODE-LOGIC.md: where the barrier runs and why there, why
replies are held, why the inline path is asymmetric, the one failure
rule, and how to measure it
- db-bench README: the wmix mode, the env knobs, and the tmpfs warning
Battery: wovm-test 36 suites 0 fail, woc-test, oop-e2e 119/0,
db-bench 106/0, linkcheck clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Plan for the approved spec. Code-free per the repo convention
(docs/plan/discarded.md:54); the executor writes the code.
- T1 a failed barrier is detected and fatal — one entry point that names
the operation, errno, WAL path and batch size, then exits. The abort
path itself stays unexercised and the task says so rather than buying
coverage with a fault-injection switch
- T2 the barrier moves to the drain point and replies are held; the
request path stops committing per append. Riskiest task, and its risk
is one place: the crash legs. Plan says STOP if they fail, do not
adjust the test
- T3 the inline path takes the same fatal rule but keeps its own barrier,
with a comment explaining the asymmetry so the next reader does not
"fix" it. Looks like a no-op; without it the two paths disagree, which
is the unevenness the spec exists to remove
- T4 prove batches actually form BEFORE measuring the payoff — otherwise
a win gets attributed to the wrong cause. Also records peak staged
bytes, settling the no-cap decision with a number
- T5 measure, gate, write it down. If the payoff is absent, say so and
stop: part B must not start on an unproven premise
- T6 closeout, including the error catalogue — WO_T_IO leaving the write
path is language-visible and must be written down
Spec corrected while planning: it pointed at durable.s1.seed as the
payoff. Wrong, structurally — worker shards hold no WAL, so a queue only
exists when other shards write, and a serial writer has nothing to batch
with. The real target is durable.sN.mixwrite: 480 ops/s at p99 5888us
against s1's 1023 at p99 664, so adding shards currently makes durable
writing WORSE. That inversion is a better argument for the iteration than
the one the story recorded.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Brainstormed 2026-08-28. The iteration is split: part A batches, part B
(io_uring submission) is deferred until A's measurement says whether the
blocking boundary still dominates.
The story's premise needed correcting first:
- it says "replace fsync-per-commit with io_uring group-commit", but the
engine commits per STATEMENT — db.c calls wo_wal_commit right after
every append, all six sites, so each row change is one pwrite + one
fdatasync
- so two independent wins were being carried as one, and only the second
needs io_uring. The staging buffer already holds any number of records;
today it never holds more than one. Part A is mostly deleting calls
- iteration 22's numbers say A is where the payoff is: durable writes
4460 ops/s, mixwrite 1023 ops/s p99 664us, against 1.28M ops/s reads
Forks settled:
- batch boundary is QUEUE-DRAIN, not the tick this story had recorded: a
tick adds latency to a lone writer, taxing an idle system to serve a
busy one. Queue-drain self-tunes and needs no knob
- shard 0 holds each reply envelope instead of sending it, commits once
when the queue empties, then releases all — so a writer is acked after
the barrier carrying ITS record, which today is true only because
every batch has one member
- a failure between "RAM mutated" and "record durable" is a FATAL,
diagnosed abort. This replaces uneven behaviour that already exists:
insert rolls back, update and delete do not and say so in a comment
("RAM ahead of disk"). Batching would have multiplied that
- consequence stated, not slipped in: WO_T_IO leaves the write path
- no batch cap initially; peak staged bytes is measured so the question
is settled by a number
One gap disclosed rather than hidden: forcing a real fdatasync failure
needs mount privileges, so the unit test proves the error is DETECTED and
the abort itself stays covered by inspection.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
- docs/stories/databasev2/, numbered from 1. Six PENDING database iterations
moved from the language track and renumbered, keeping the old id in
`was_language_iteration:` so a search for "iteration 32" still finds it:
32 -> 3 WAL checkpoint, 23 -> 4 io_uring commit, 33 -> 7 single-file store,
27 -> 8 query grammar, 20 -> 9 cross-program, 21 -> 10 keypair auth.
Done work (9, 9b, 22) stays as v1 history; language 18 left whole
- the problem, read off the engine not guessed: rows are malloc'd slabs with
addresses stable forever, NO eviction/spill/paging anywhere in database/src,
the WAL never checkpoints so boot replays all history, and durability is one
process-global WO_DATA so no table can say it matters more than another.
An allocation failure IS a clean catchable WO_T_OOM — but swap thrash
arrives first and carries no error signal at all, which is the real hazard
- four new iterations:
1 measure the ceiling FIRST (curve not cliff; the three exits; kill -9 at
exhaustion) — every later default should follow from a number
2 `@table(mode: ram | durable | cold)` — the grammar ask. Small surface
(Ast.table_cfg gains a key, the parser already rejects unknown args), big
semantics: `durable` defaults so nothing changes silently, and the
compiler refuses a durable row holding a `ref` into a ram table
5 bounded tables + refuse/evict/back-pressure, shedding BEFORE the OS acts
6 cold tiering — mostly forks, incl. whether the language surfaces the
fault cost and whether @unique on cold is refused outright. A paged
B-tree stays rejected: if tiering needs one, reject tiering
- 39 links repointed, link TEXT renumbered to track-local ids; arc gains one
pointer row replacing the six moved; board + board-views cover three tracks
- linkcheck 0 broken / 0 anchors; no code blocks in any story
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-26 20:52:48 +02:00
Renamed from docs/stories/language-runtime-database/23-io-uring-commit.md (Browse further)
