Skip to content
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

Do not require all sinks to be finished in FileSystemExchange #19736

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 14, 2023

Conversation

losipiuk
Copy link
Member

It is not enforced by engine that each created sink will be finished. Some tasks may be abandoned as not required for computing query result and siks for those tasks will not be finished.

Release notes

(x) This is not user-visible or is docs only, and no release notes are required.

It is not enforced by engine that each created sink will be finished.
Some tasks may be abandoned as not required for computing query result
and siks for those tasks will not be finished.
@@ -183,7 +183,6 @@ public void allRequiredSinksFinished()
return;
}
verify(noMoreSinks, "noMoreSinks is expected to be set");
verify(finishedSinks.keySet().containsAll(allSinks), "all sinks are expected to be finished");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we need to finish/close the sinks that weren't finished yet?
can there be a resource leak we if we do not so?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also though about it. Theoretically yeah - but not the case for exchange implementation we have right now. So I would not extend SPI just yet - we can add the method if we see it is needed for some upcoming exchange impl.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can there be a resource leak we if we do not so?

maybe not a leak, but memory could be stalled for a longer time then needed. I would close them if we can

@losipiuk losipiuk merged commit 2874776 into trinodb:master Nov 14, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 434 milestone Nov 14, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants