ddl: Remove explicit exclude for "engine" notIn "tiflash"

[JaySon-Huang]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #58633

Problem Summary:

When creating a placement policy through tidb, tidb will create a placement-rule with "engine" notIn "tiflash" #22065
However, under tiflash disaggregated compute and storage arch, the compute node will register store with label {"engine": "tiflash_compute"}.

The logic in PD of choosing store for rule: pkg/schedule/placement/label_constraint.go @ pd

1. If the store's label.key is equal to "engine" (or "exclusive," or starts with '$'), and the rule's constraint does not contain a rule with the same label.key, then do not schedule the peer to this store.
2. Otherwise, further check if the rule's constraint matches the store's label. If it matches, schedule the peer to this store.

So the PD would pick tiflash compute node as target store to place the Region peer.

What changed and how does it work?

Remove the explicit exclude rule "engine" notIn "tiflash" when generating rule

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)

1. Deploy a cluster with tikv and disaggregated tiflash (1 tiflash compute node and 1 tiflash storage node)
2. Load TPC-H dataset into the cluster and create tiflash replica
3. Create placement policy

CREATE PLACEMENT POLICY evict_sata_dw CONSTRAINTS="[-disk=sata-new, -disk=dw-ssd]" SURVIVAL_PREFERENCES="[host]";
ALTER TABLE test.region PLACEMENT POLICY=evict_sata_dw;
ALTER RANGE global PLACEMENT POLICY evict_sata_dw;

4. Check the cluster status, no node crashes

• No need to test

  • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

Fix a bug that after executing `ALTER TABLE ... PLACEMENT POLICY ...` Region peers may be unexpectedly added to the TiFlash Compute Node in the disaggregated storage and compute architecture

[tiprow]

Hi @JaySon-Huang. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.8622%. Comparing base (23ed0df) to head (7ae26a6).
Report is 121 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #58637        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   73.0885%   74.8622%   +1.7737%     
================================================
  Files          1676       1721        +45     
  Lines        463646     471816      +8170     
================================================
+ Hits         338872     353212     +14340     
+ Misses       103927      96287      -7640     
- Partials      20847      22317      +1470     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	48.7790% <100.0000%> (?)
unit	72.2763% <100.0000%> (-0.0067%)	⬇️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	52.6910% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	61.6314% <ø> (+15.8984%)	⬆️

[JaySon-Huang]

/retest-required

[tiprow]

@JaySon-Huang: Cannot trigger testing until a trusted user reviews the PR and leaves an /ok-to-test message.

In response to this:

/retest-required

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[JaySon-Huang]

/cc @xhebox @tangenta PTAL

[ti-chi-bot]

@JaySon-Huang: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: PTAL.

Note that only pingcap members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

/cc @xhebox @tangenta PTAL

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: tangenta, xhebox

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:

• pkg/ddl/OWNERS [tangenta]

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:

• 2025-01-09 03:29:14.807669068 +0000 UTC m=+410698.096500772: ☑️ agreed by xhebox.
• 2025-01-09 06:52:01.903978784 +0000 UTC m=+422865.192810490: ☑️ agreed by tangenta.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-8.1: #59038.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-8.5: #59039.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.5: #59040.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-6.5: #59182.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.1: #59193.