executor: fix the issue that INSERT IGNORE doesn't lock the parent table

[YangKeao]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #56655

Problem Summary:

INSERT IGNORE cannot lock the rows in parent, so the constraint may be broken.

What changed and how does it work?

Try to lock the rows even when the toBeCheckedKeys and toBeCheckedPrefixKeys are empty.

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No need to test

  • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Release note

None

[YangKeao]

I still don't know why this case will fail in the unistore. Maybe the transaction implementation has some bugs (or just different behaviors).

I tried this case with/without IGNORE. It seems that the foreign key behaves strangely in unistore 🤔 :

Prepare:

create table parent (id int primary key);
create table child(id int primary key, ref int, foreign key (ref) references parent(id));

insert into parent values (1);

Execute:

Transaction 1	Transaction 2
BEGIN;	BEGIN;
INSERT INTO child VALUES (1, 1);
	UPDATE parent SET id = 2 WHERE id = 1
COMMIT;
	COMMIT;

[YangKeao]

I record this issue in #56663. It's confirmed as a transaction bug in unistore.

[YangKeao]

It'll be fixed in #56821

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 56.2956%. Comparing base (49c3eba) to head (5179c92).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #56661         +/-   ##
=================================================
- Coverage   73.2689%   56.2956%   -16.9733%     
=================================================
  Files          1650       1776        +126     
  Lines        455646     634548     +178902     
=================================================
+ Hits         333847     357223      +23376     
- Misses       101279     253233     +151954     
- Partials      20520      24092       +3572     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	37.0345% <100.0000%> (?)
unit	72.5107% <100.0000%> (-0.0485%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	52.9478% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	52.6262% <ø> (+6.6255%)	⬆️

[YangKeao]

/retest

[YangKeao]

/retest

[YangKeao]

run test [planner/core/indexmerge_path] err: sql:explain select * from t use index (iad) where a = 1;: failed to run query 
"explain select * from t use index (iad) where a = 1;" 
 around line 233, 
we need(299):
explain select * from t use index (iad) where a = 1;
id      estRows task    access object   operator info
TableReader_7   1.00    root            data:Selection_6
└─Selection_6   1.00    cop[tikv]               eq(planner__core__indexmerge_path.t.a, 1)
  └─TableFullScan_5     2.00    cop[tikv]       table:t keep order:false
explain select * fro
but got(299):
explain select * from t use index (iad) where a = 1;
id      estRows task    access object   operator info
TableReader_7   10.00   root            data:Selection_6
└─Selection_6   10.00   cop[tikv]               eq(planner__core__indexmerge_path.t.a, 1)
  └─TableFullScan_5     10000.00        cop[tikv]       table:t keep order:false, stats:pseudo

This test failure cannot be reproduced locally 🤔 . Investigating.

[YangKeao]

/retest

[YangKeao]

/retest

[bb7133]

LGTM

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: bb7133, crazycs520

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [bb7133,crazycs520]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-10-28 06:12:21.410051194 +0000 UTC m=+243854.249206740: ☑️ agreed by crazycs520.
• 2024-10-29 18:35:36.774626435 +0000 UTC m=+374849.613781981: ☑️ agreed by bb7133.

[YangKeao]

/retest

[YangKeao]

/retest

[YangKeao]

/retest