Skip to content

Commit 9ee13e9

Browse files
authored
add wait async ddl description (#18900) (#19148)
1 parent 339cbeb commit 9ee13e9

File tree

2 files changed

+3
-1
lines changed

2 files changed

+3
-1
lines changed

ticdc/ticdc-ddl.md

Lines changed: 2 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ The allow list of DDL statements supported by TiCDC is as follows:
5050

5151
When the downstream is TiDB, TiCDC executes `ADD INDEX` and `CREATE INDEX` DDL operations asynchronously to minimize the impact on changefeed replication latency. This means that, after replicating `ADD INDEX` and `CREATE INDEX` DDLs to the downstream TiDB for execution, TiCDC returns immediately without waiting for the completion of the DDL execution. This avoids blocking subsequent DML executions.
5252

53+
During the execution of the `ADD INDEX` or `CREATE INDEX` DDL operation in the downstream, when TiCDC executes the next DDL operation of the same table, this DDL operation might be blocked in the `queueing` state for a long time. This can cause TiCDC to repeatedly execute this DDL operation, and if retries take too long, it might lead to replication task failure. Starting from v7.5.4, if TiCDC has the `SUPER` permission of the downstream database, it periodically runs `ADMIN SHOW DDL JOBS` to check the status of asynchronously executed DDL tasks. TiCDC will wait for index creation to complete before proceeding with replication. Although this might increase replication latency, it avoids replication task failure.
54+
5355
> **Note:**
5456
>
5557
> - If the execution of certain downstream DMLs relies on indexes that have not completed replication, these DMLs might be executed slowly, thereby affecting TiCDC replication latency.

ticdc/ticdc-split-update-behavior.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ Therefore, TiCDC splits these two events into four events, that is, deleting rec
113113
Starting from v6.5.10, v7.1.6, and v7.5.3, when using a non-MySQL sink, TiCDC supports controlling whether to split primary or unique key `UPDATE` events via the `output-raw-change-event` parameter, as described in the GitHub issue [#11211]( https://github.com/pingcap/tiflow/issues/11211). The specific behavior of this parameter is as follows:
114114

115115
- When you set `output-raw-change-event = false`, if the primary key or non-null unique index value is modified in an `UPDATE` event, TiCDC splits the event into `DELETE` and `INSERT` events and ensures that all events follow the sequence of `DELETE` events preceding `INSERT` events.
116-
- When you set `output-raw-change-event = true`, TiCDC does not split `UPDATE` events. Note that when the primary key of a table is a clustered index, updates to the primary key are still split into `DELETE` and `INSERT` events in TiDB, and such behavior is not affected by the `output-raw-change-event` parameter.
116+
- When you set `output-raw-change-event = true`, TiCDC does not split `UPDATE` events, and the consumer side is responsible for dealing with the problems described in [Split primary or unique key `UPDATE` events for non-MySQL sinks](/ticdc/ticdc-split-update-behavior.md#split-primary-or-unique-key-update-events-for-non-mysql-sinks). Otherwise there might be a risk of data inconsistency. Note that when the primary key of a table is a clustered index, updates to the primary key are still split into `DELETE` and `INSERT` events in TiDB, and such behavior is not affected by the `output-raw-change-event` parameter.
117117

118118
> **Note**
119119
>

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)