Skip to content

Conversation

@klion26
Copy link
Member

@klion26 klion26 commented May 4, 2019

What is the purpose of the change

cherry-pick #8263 to release-1.6 manually.

Verifying this change

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

flink-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/test/state/StatefulOperatorChainedTaskTest.java#testMultipleStatefulOperatorChainedSnapshotAndRestore

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (yes / no)
  • The serializers: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (yes / no / don't know)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The S3 file system connector: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)

@StefanRRichter

…on with state loss for chained keyed operators

- Change
Will change the local data path from
`.../local_state_root/allocatio_id/job_id/jobvertext_id_subtask_id/chk_id/rocksdb`
to
`.../local_state_root/allocatio_id/job_id/jobvertext_id_subtask_id/chk_id/backend_id`

When preparing the local directory Flink deletes the local directory for each subtask if it already exists,
If more than one stateful operators chained in a single task, they'll share the same local directory path,
then the local directory will be deleted unexpectedly, and the we'll get data loss.
@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented May 4, 2019

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❗ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

Details
The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@klion26
Copy link
Member Author

klion26 commented May 13, 2019

@flinkbot attention @StefanRRichter

@StefanRRichter StefanRRichter merged commit 0dda6fe into apache:release-1.6 May 13, 2019
@klion26 klion26 deleted the release16_FLINK12296 branch December 2, 2024 06:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants