[SPARK-44835][CONNECT] Make INVALID_CURSOR.DISCONNECTED a retriable error #42818
Conversation
This file contains 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
grundprinzip
reviewed
Sep 6, 2023
Comment on lines
606
to
614
| if e.code() in [ | ||
| grpc.StatusCode.INTERNAL | ||
| ]: | ||
| # This error happens if another RPC preempts this RPC, retry. | ||
| msg_cursor_disconnected = "INVALID_CURSOR.DISCONNECTED" | ||
|
|
||
| msg = str(e) | ||
| if any(map(lambda x: x in msg, [msg_cursor_disconnected])): | ||
| return True |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we have some logic to convert the error messages from random RPC errors to spark understandable exceptions. I'm wondering if we should leverage this here as well.
pyspark.errors.exceptions.connect.convert()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can do this in a follow up.
grundprinzip
approved these changes
Sep 6, 2023
|
https://github.com/juliuszsompolski/apache-spark/actions/runs/6097172856/job/16544325699 flake |
|
https://github.com/juliuszsompolski/apache-spark/actions/runs/6097172856/job/16544375244 I believe that after the server crashed with The client kept retrying the UNAVAILABLE error (as expected), until it ran out of retries (the fact that it took 612 s is consistent that retries should take about 10 minutes) So this is as expected (other than the server shouldn't be crashing with malloc memory corruption, but that's unrelated to this PR). |
hvanhovell
reviewed
Sep 6, 2023
...tor/connect/common/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/connect/client/GrpcRetryHandler.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
HyukjinKwon
changed the title
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Sep 7, 2023
|
Merged to master and branch-3.5. |
HyukjinKwon
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 7, 2023
…rror ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Make INVALID_CURSOR.DISCONNECTED a retriable error. ### Why are the changes needed? This error can happen if two RPCs are racing to reattach to the query, and the client is still using the losing one. SPARK-44833 was a bug that exposed such a situation. That was fixed, but to be more robust, we can make this error retryable. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Tests will be added in #42560 ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #42818 from juliuszsompolski/SPARK-44835. Authored-by: Juliusz Sompolski <julek@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls223@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit f13743d) Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls223@apache.org>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Make INVALID_CURSOR.DISCONNECTED a retriable error.
Why are the changes needed?
This error can happen if two RPCs are racing to reattach to the query, and the client is still using the losing one. SPARK-44833 was a bug that exposed such a situation. That was fixed, but to be more robust, we can make this error retryable.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Tests will be added in #42560
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.