shoney.arickathil
62d29d6a77
Iteration 24 closes, absorbing 31 and 34. No code in this commit. - stories 24, 31, 34 -> `status: done`, each with a landing banner. 24's records the gate numbers and BOTH disclosed deviations: monitor takes three arguments (the caller may be `main`, which has no mailbox) and a v1 `call` reply is a typed scalar (which is what let the agreement be checked at compile time, WO-E226). 31's notes it landed INSIDE 24 and that a fifth mechanism it never anticipated came out of proving the gate — the drain guarantee (40). 34's names the gap it did NOT close: still no RNG, so CSRF/sessions stay blocked - board: in-progress row cleared, marker doc deleted (convention), the standup entry in the six-question shape, chain note — next link is databasev2 4 (io_uring group-commit, chain 5) - graph: PUBSUB2 (pub/sub + WebSockets, "rejected until here") -> done - porch ledger: a WebSocket/pub-sub row added; the cancellation row now says what it actually waits on rather than repeating "the arc"; the README's "no WebSockets/SSE" limitation was stale — WebSockets are supported, SSE and chunked encoding are not - CODE-LOGIC: runtime/src gains the actor-lifecycle section (call, death, the cap counter's sender/home-thread split, the monitor walk, the timer list), the drain guarantee, and the digest section; docs/examples/chat gains its own — actor topology, WHY two actors per connection, fd ownership, and the shutdown choreography Battery after the doc edits: wovm-test 36 suites 0 fail, woc-test exit 0, oop-e2e 119/0, chat 11/0, web-app 46/0, linkcheck clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
63 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
63 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
# `db-actor` — the database reached from any shard
|
|
|
|
> **Status: shipped — arc stage 3's acceptance gate.** Run it with
|
|
> `just db-actor`. Landed 2026-08-21 with the shard-fiber arc
|
|
> ([story 8](../../stories/language-runtime-database/08-shard-actor-runtime.md)
|
|
> · [plan](../../superpowers/plans/2026-08-20-shard-fiber-arc.md)).
|
|
|
|
The database lives on **one** shard — the owner, shard 0 — because RAM is
|
|
authoritative and a single writer is what makes the WAL's ordering meaningful.
|
|
That is a problem the moment actors are placed round-robin across cores: a
|
|
`spawn`ed actor has no say in which shard it lands on, and before stage 3 a
|
|
worker-shard `insert` trapped `WO_T_DB` with "database engine not initialized".
|
|
|
|
Stage 3's answer is a **transparent DB actor**: statements issued off the owner
|
|
shard marshal to it, execute there, and materialize their replies back. The
|
|
program's source says nothing about any of it — the same `insert` and the same
|
|
`from … select` work wherever the actor happens to run. This sample exists to
|
|
prove exactly that, which is why its acceptance criterion is *placement
|
|
independence* rather than any particular output.
|
|
|
|
## What it does
|
|
|
|
`Note` is a `@table` with a secondary index on `tag`. `Writer` is an actor: each
|
|
one inserts a row, then scans the whole table and prints the sum it sees. `main`
|
|
spawns two writers, waits, then scans once itself.
|
|
|
|
With the default shard count, round-robin placement puts at least one writer off
|
|
the owner shard — so one of those inserts and one of those scans travel the RPC
|
|
path under test, and the other does not. Both must produce the same shape.
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
just db-actor # the gate
|
|
woc docs/examples/db-actor/ # or build it by hand
|
|
WO_SHARDS=1 ./docs/examples/db-actor/target/db-actor # force the local path
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## What the gate proves
|
|
|
|
`scripts/db-actor-accept.sh`, 8 checks:
|
|
|
|
| Check | Why it is shaped that way |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| multi-shard, three rounds | The writer lines are asserted as a **set**, not a sequence — scheduling decides their order, and pinning it would be testing the scheduler, not the RPC. The `main` line is exact. |
|
|
| both `WO_IO` backends forced | The reply park has to be plane-independent: io_uring and epoll must give the same answer, or the parking is leaking into semantics. |
|
|
| single shard, byte-exact | The local path is untouched by stage 3. Any drift here means the RPC changed the non-RPC case. |
|
|
| `WO_DATA` restart pair | A worker's insert must commit on the **owner's** WAL before its ack, so a restart replays it: 2 rows, then 2+2 after a second run. This is the durability claim the RPC could most easily break. |
|
|
|
|
Run under `wovm_asan` and `wovm_tsan` as well — cross-shard message passing is
|
|
exactly where a data race would hide, and TSan covering this demo is the one
|
|
place it runs.
|
|
|
|
## Read it for
|
|
|
|
- **How little the source knows.** Compare `Writer.receive` here against the
|
|
same statements in [`employee`](../employee/): identical. Transparency is the
|
|
feature.
|
|
- **Why `main` waits.** `main` is not an actor and has no mailbox, so it sleeps
|
|
rather than awaiting — the gap iteration 31's `call` closes for actors and
|
|
[iteration 24](../../stories/language-runtime-database/24-chat-websocket-workload.md)
|
|
landed 2026-08-27.
|
|
|
|
Reasoning under the engine side: [`database/src/CODE-LOGIC.md`](../../../database/src/CODE-LOGIC.md).
|
|
Contract: [`plan/oop-vm/04-db-binding.md`](../../plan/oop-vm/04-db-binding.md).
|