-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 203
Replace TrinoResult generator with class-based iterator for error recovery #612
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
srchilukoori
wants to merge
1
commit into
trinodb:master
Choose a base branch
from
srchilukoori:fix/trino-result-iterator-recovery
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems to work correctly for the spooling case, when I/O errors originate from
next(self._row_iter).But what if the error is raised by
self._query.fetch()instead?As I understand, in the spooling case it is not an issue, since
self._query.fetch()does not occur once the list of segments is fetched right at the beginning. Except maybe when it does not fit in a single response page? But it can occur if the direct protocol is used andself._query.fetch()is called to get the next result page.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ultimately, what contract do we want the iterator to have?
Do we want to guarantee that it can be reused after an I/O error, and return more data without duplication, possibly skipping over some rows? It works that way for spooling but I'm not sure if it works that way for the direct protocol. For example, an error in
self._query.fetch()in line 871 will leaveself._next_rowsunchanged and I think the iterator would go over them second time after the error.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Another thought: if we assume s3 communication is more unreliable than coordinator communication, as #598 seems to assume, maybe we should just have a separate retry/backoff policy for s3 downloading?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@hashhar, you're the reporter of #598, WDYT?