Skip to content

Conversation

@swjtu-zhanglei
Copy link
Contributor

@swjtu-zhanglei swjtu-zhanglei commented Sep 5, 2025

  • step1: MS txn lazy commit convert tmp rowsets and make txn visible commit failed due to unexpected fdb error
  • step2: BE schema change job convert historical data and prepare/commit rowsets with the same txn_id and tablet_id for new tablet rowset meta, tmp rowset key is decided by (txn_id, tablet_id)
  • step3: MS retry lazy commit will convert tmp rowset which write by schema change job

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #xxx

Problem Summary:

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

  • Test

    • Regression test
    • Unit Test
    • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
      • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
      • Previous test can cover this change.
      • No code files have been changed.
      • Other reason
  • Behavior changed:

    • No.
    • Yes.
  • Does this need documentation?

    • No.
    • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

  • Confirm the release note
  • Confirm test cases
  • Confirm document
  • Add branch pick label

* step1: MS txn lazy commit convert tmp rowsets and make txn visible commit failed due to unexpected fdb error
* step2: BE schema change job convert historical data and prepare/commit rowsets with the same txn_id and tablet_id
         for new tablet rowset meta, tmp rowset key is decided by (txn_id, tablet_id)
* step3: MS retry lazy commit will convert tmp rowset which write by schema change job
@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Sep 5, 2025

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@swjtu-zhanglei
Copy link
Contributor Author

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

Cloud UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (11/11) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 80.94% (1176/1453)
Line Coverage 65.33% (20323/31107)
Region Coverage 66.93% (10234/15291)
Branch Coverage 56.64% (5417/9564)

Copy link
Contributor

@dataroaring dataroaring left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@github-actions github-actions bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Sep 5, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 5, 2025

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 5, 2025

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@dataroaring dataroaring merged commit a98e95d into apache:branch-3.0 Sep 5, 2025
30 of 31 checks passed
@swjtu-zhanglei
Copy link
Contributor Author

pick #55349

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. reviewed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants