shoney.arickathil
746dc2b42b
- 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>
153 lines
8 KiB
Markdown
153 lines
8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
track: databasev2
|
|
iteration: "4"
|
|
was_language_iteration: "23"
|
|
status: refine
|
|
chain: 5
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# databasev2 4 — io_uring group-commit write path
|
|
|
|
> **Moved 2026-08-26** from the language track, where this was iteration 23.
|
|
> Part of [Story — the database beyond RAM](../language-runtime-database/00-story.md). Content unchanged by
|
|
> the move; its dependencies are restated in that track index.
|
|
|
|
> Format: `product/story-iteration-template`. Part of
|
|
> [Story — one language, one runtime, one database, one binary](../language-runtime-database/00-story.md).
|
|
>
|
|
> **Inserted 2026-08-15.** The write-path optimization, and deliberately the
|
|
> LAST database performance iteration: it only earns its complexity once
|
|
> there is a measured fsync-per-commit baseline to beat (iteration 22) and a
|
|
> multithreaded runtime to overlap against (iteration 8). Doing it earlier
|
|
> would optimize a number nobody had measured, against a runtime that
|
|
> couldn't use it.
|
|
>
|
|
> **No spec exists yet.** ~~The forks in *Info* are genuine decisions.~~
|
|
>
|
|
> **REFINED 2026-08-20: the four forks are SETTLED as their recorded
|
|
> leanings** (developer confirmation, no code): (1) drop-in behind
|
|
> `wo_wal_commit` first, an async variant only if the arc's scheduler
|
|
> proves the blocking boundary is the bottleneck; (2) raw
|
|
> `io_uring_setup`/`io_uring_enter` syscalls — libc-only doctrine holds,
|
|
> ring layout documented normatively; (3) the batch boundary is the shard
|
|
> tick (the 8+11 arc's quantum), single-writer fallback batches whatever
|
|
> accumulated; (4) startup auto-probe + an env override so CI proves both
|
|
> paths on one kernel — AMENDED: the override is the arc-wide
|
|
> `WO_IO=uring|epoll` (the arc's T4 owns the probe and the per-shard
|
|
> ring; `WO_WAL_MODE` is subsumed). Position — RE-SEQUENCED 2026-08-21:
|
|
> FIFTH in the concurrency chain (32, WAL checkpoint, follows it —
|
|
> added 2026-08-21), **stage 3 → 22 → 31 → 24 → 23 → 32**
|
|
> (supersedes the 2026-08-20 old-id ordering "9e → 8+11 → 9f"); the
|
|
> per-shard ring already exists (arc T4 landed 2026-08-20,
|
|
> `WO_IO=uring|epoll`) — this iteration adds the WAL's WRITE+FSYNC
|
|
> chains to it. AMENDED 2026-08-20 (io_uring-first
|
|
> directive): the WAL's WRITE+FSYNC chains ride the SAME per-shard ring
|
|
> T4 creates for fiber parking — one event loop per shard, readiness ops
|
|
> and durability ops together, exactly the linux reference project's
|
|
> "single event loop" card. One composition
|
|
> note added since iteration 18: a `transaction { }` already IS a staged
|
|
> batch — under io_uring it becomes exactly one submission, so the two
|
|
> features compose without either knowing the other.
|
|
|
|
## Goals
|
|
|
|
- **Replace fsync-per-commit with io_uring group-commit** on the WAL write
|
|
path: batch a tick's committed records into one submission, let the kernel
|
|
overlap the write and the durability barrier, and acknowledge each writer
|
|
only after the barrier its record rode has completed — the same
|
|
ack-after-durable contract, at a fraction of the syscall cost.
|
|
- **Overlap durability with work.** With the shard-actor runtime
|
|
(iteration 8) the shard thread submits its batch and keeps executing ready
|
|
statements while the ring drains, instead of blocking one thread on one
|
|
fdatasync — the multithreading the throughput number has been waiting for.
|
|
- **Keep the durability promise byte-for-byte.** Every guarantee iterations 9
|
|
and 22 proved — replay-whole-or-not-at-all, torn-tail drop, no
|
|
acknowledged write ever lost — holds identically; io_uring changes HOW the
|
|
bytes reach the platter, never WHETHER an ack means durable.
|
|
|
|
## Acceptance Criteria
|
|
|
|
- What to achieve?
|
|
- **Given** the io_uring write path under the iteration-22 crash battery
|
|
(concurrent writers, kill -9 mid-stream, reboot, replay),
|
|
- **when** it runs,
|
|
- **then** every acknowledged write is present after replay and no
|
|
unacknowledged partial write is ever visible — the exact result the
|
|
fsync path gives, so durability is provably unchanged.
|
|
- What to achieve?
|
|
- **Given** the iteration-22 durable write benchmark,
|
|
- **when** it is run on the fsync-per-commit path and then the io_uring
|
|
group-commit path on the same machine,
|
|
- **then** the io_uring path's write throughput is materially higher and
|
|
its p99 commit latency lower, with the before/after numbers recorded —
|
|
the payoff, measured, not asserted.
|
|
- What to achieve?
|
|
- **Given** a kernel without io_uring (old, or restricted by seccomp),
|
|
- **when** the runtime starts,
|
|
- **then** it falls back to the pwrite + fdatasync path automatically and
|
|
correctly — io_uring is an accelerator, never a hard dependency, and a
|
|
binary that runs everywhere is the whole project's premise.
|
|
|
|
## Out Of Scope
|
|
|
|
- **io_uring for the network/accept path.** This iteration is the WAL write
|
|
path only; the socket side is the shard-actor runtime's and the network
|
|
layer's concern.
|
|
- **io_uring for reads.** RAM is authoritative — reads never touch a
|
|
descriptor (phase-B doctrine), so there is nothing to accelerate on the
|
|
read path. This is a write-durability optimization, full stop.
|
|
- **Registered buffers / fixed files / SQPOLL tuning** beyond what the
|
|
benchmark shows is worth it. Start with the plain submit/complete model;
|
|
add ring features only when 22's number says a specific one pays.
|
|
- **Replacing the WAL format or the commit contract.** The bytes on disk and
|
|
the meaning of an ack are iteration 9's; this changes the syscall, not the
|
|
format.
|
|
|
|
## Info
|
|
|
|
Forks the spec must settle:
|
|
|
|
**1. How much of the ring model, and behind what abstraction?** The write
|
|
path today is `pwrite` + `fdatasync` in `database/src/wal.c`; io_uring adds a
|
|
submission/completion queue and a durability barrier op
|
|
(`IORING_OP_FSYNC`/`IORING_FSYNC_DATASYNC` or `O_DSYNC` writes). The fork:
|
|
wrap it behind the existing `wo_wal_commit` boundary (drop-in, the engine
|
|
never learns) or expose an async-commit primitive the shard scheduler drives
|
|
(faster overlap, but couples the WAL to iteration 8's loop). Leaning:
|
|
drop-in behind `wo_wal_commit` first — it is the correctness-preserving
|
|
step and 22 can measure it standalone — then an async variant only if 8's
|
|
scheduler shows the blocking boundary is the remaining bottleneck.
|
|
|
|
**2. liburing or raw syscalls?** liburing is the ergonomic wrapper but is a
|
|
new external dependency, against the libc-only doctrine; the raw
|
|
`io_uring_setup`/`io_uring_enter` syscalls are a few hundred lines and keep
|
|
the doctrine. Leaning: raw syscalls (the doctrine is load-bearing and this is
|
|
a bounded surface), with the mmap'd ring setup written down in the binding
|
|
doc the way the WAL format is — normative, versioned.
|
|
|
|
**3. What is the batch boundary?** Per-statement commit (today) is the
|
|
simplest correct thing and the slowest; a group commit needs a boundary — a
|
|
tick (iteration 8's scheduler quantum), a count, or a short time window.
|
|
Leaning: the shard tick once iteration 8 lands (a batch is "everything
|
|
committed this tick"), with a single-writer fallback that batches whatever
|
|
accumulated between one `wo_wal_commit` call and the ring draining.
|
|
|
|
**4. How is the fallback chosen and tested?** A kernel probe at startup
|
|
(attempt `io_uring_setup`, fall back on ENOSYS/EPERM) is the mechanism; the
|
|
question is how CI proves BOTH paths without two kernels. Leaning: an
|
|
environment override (`WO_WAL_MODE=fsync|uring`) so the test matrix runs the
|
|
crash battery and the benchmark on both on any capable machine, and the
|
|
auto-probe is what production uses.
|
|
|
|
## Proposed Solution
|
|
|
|
- **Brainstorm the spec** after iterations 8 and 22 exist — this iteration is
|
|
meaningless without a multithreaded runtime to overlap against and a
|
|
measured baseline to beat, and its plan's acceptance is literally "22's
|
|
durable number improved, 22's crash battery still green, fsync fallback
|
|
still correct".
|
|
- Expected shape: a `wo_wal` write-mode switch (fsync vs uring), the raw ring
|
|
setup + submit/complete in `database/src/wal.c` (or a `wal_uring.c`
|
|
beside it), the startup probe + `WO_WAL_MODE` override, the binding doc's
|
|
WAL section extended with the ring layout, and iteration 22 re-run on both
|
|
paths with the delta committed.
|