session: make TxnInfo() return even if process info is empty (#57044)

[ti-chi-bot]

This is an automated cherry-pick of #57044

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #57043

Problem Summary:

tidb/pkg/session/session.go

Lines 4026 to 4030 in c240fdf

	txnInfo := tmp.TxnInfo()
	if txnInfo != nil {
	startTS = txnInfo.StartTS
	processInfoID = txnInfo.ConnectionID
	}

TxnInfo() could be nil if process info is not set(see the implementation of TxnInfo()). Such sessions are commonly used in DDL/DXF:

tidb/pkg/ddl/backfilling_operators.go

Lines 533 to 539 in c240fdf

	sessCtx, err := w.sessPool.Get()
	if err != nil {
	logutil.Logger(w.ctx).Error("tableScanWorker get session from pool failed", zap.Error(err))
	w.ctx.onError(err)
	return
	}
	w.se = session.NewSession(sessCtx)

And they only invoke session.Begin() before using:

tidb/pkg/ddl/index_cop.go

Lines 43 to 48 in c240fdf

	func wrapInBeginRollback(se *sess.Session, f func(startTS uint64) error) error {
	err := se.Begin(context.Background())
	if err != nil {
	return errors.Trace(err)
	}
	defer se.Rollback()

As a result, the startTS from internal DDL sessions will not be reported to etcd, and GC safepoint will be advanced unexpectedly.

What changed and how does it work?

Make TxnInfo() return even if process info is 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.

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.

None

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 89.79592% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Please upload report for BASE (release-8.5@62a1bb5). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             release-8.5     #57161   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage               ?   56.6721%           
================================================
  Files                  ?       1780           
  Lines                  ?     643242           
  Branches               ?          0           
================================================
  Hits                   ?     364539           
  Misses                 ?     254354           
  Partials               ?      24349           

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	36.8057% <51.0204%> (?)
unit	72.5264% <89.7959%> (?)

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

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	52.9478% <0.0000%> (?)
parser	∅ <0.0000%> (?)
br	52.3998% <0.0000%> (?)

[ti-chi-bot]

PR needs rebase.

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.

[Benjamin2037]

LGTM

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Benjamin2037, lance6716

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 [Benjamin2037,lance6716]
• pkg/ddl/OWNERS [Benjamin2037,lance6716]
• pkg/domain/OWNERS [lance6716]
• pkg/infoschema/OWNERS [Benjamin2037]

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:

• 2024-11-25 12:57:42.056451277 +0000 UTC m=+468449.676105790: ☑️ agreed by Benjamin2037.
• 2024-12-02 04:31:25.286806257 +0000 UTC m=+1042872.906460772: ☑️ agreed by lance6716.

[lance6716]

/retest