Skip to content

[fix](txn lazy commit) fix txn lazy commit conflict with schema change#55349

Merged
dataroaring merged 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
swjtu-zhanglei:master-fix18
Sep 1, 2025
Merged

[fix](txn lazy commit) fix txn lazy commit conflict with schema change#55349
dataroaring merged 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
swjtu-zhanglei:master-fix18

Conversation

@swjtu-zhanglei
Copy link
Contributor

@swjtu-zhanglei swjtu-zhanglei commented Aug 27, 2025 •
edited
Loading

  • 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

@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Aug 27, 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?

w41ter
w41ter previously approved these changes Aug 27, 2025
View reviewed changes
@github-actions github-actions bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Aug 27, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Aug 27, 2025

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

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Aug 27, 2025

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@swjtu-zhanglei
Copy link
Contributor Author

swjtu-zhanglei commented Aug 27, 2025

run buildall

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Aug 27, 2025
@doris-robot
Copy link

doris-robot commented Aug 27, 2025

Cloud UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (11/11) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 83.60% (1427/1707)
Line Coverage 67.24% (25391/37760)
Region Coverage 68.32% (12652/18518)
Branch Coverage 58.14% (6713/11546)

@swjtu-zhanglei
Copy link
Contributor Author

swjtu-zhanglei commented Aug 29, 2025

run buildall

@swjtu-zhanglei
[fix](txn lazy commit) fix txn lazy commit conflict with schema change
2870574 
* 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
@swjtu-zhanglei
Copy link
Contributor Author

swjtu-zhanglei commented Aug 29, 2025

run buildall

@doris-robot
Copy link

doris-robot commented Aug 29, 2025

Cloud UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (11/11) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 83.66% (1439/1720)
Line Coverage 67.35% (25736/38213)
Region Coverage 68.39% (12799/18714)
Branch Coverage 58.27% (6814/11694)

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Aug 31, 2025

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

@github-actions github-actions bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Aug 31, 2025
bobhan1
bobhan1 reviewed Sep 1, 2025
View reviewed changes
cloud/test/txn_lazy_commit_test.cpp
int64_t tablet_id = tablet_id_base + i;
check_tablet_idx_db_id(txn, db_id, tablet_id);
check_tmp_rowset_exist(txn, tablet_id, txn_id);
check_rowset_meta_exist(txn, tablet_id, 2);
Copy link
Contributor

@bobhan1 bobhan1 Sep 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should also check check_rowset_meta_not_exist(txn, tablet_id, 3)?

@dataroaring dataroaring merged commit 0f1f5da into apache:master Sep 1, 2025
32 checks passed
swjtu-zhanglei added a commit to swjtu-zhanglei/incubator-doris that referenced this pull request Sep 5, 2025
@swjtu-zhanglei
[fix](txn lazy commit) fix txn lazy commit conflict with schema change (
e4e7639 
apache#55349)

* 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

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #xxx

Problem Summary:

None

- Test <!-- At least one of them must be included. -->
    - [ ] Regression test
    - [x] 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 <!-- Add your reason?  -->

- Behavior changed:
    - [ ] No.
    - [ ] Yes. <!-- Explain the behavior change -->

- Does this need documentation?
    - [ ] No.
- [ ] Yes. <!-- Add document PR link here. eg:
apache/doris-website#1214 -->

- [ ] Confirm the release note
- [ ] Confirm test cases
- [ ] Confirm document
- [ ] Add branch pick label <!-- Add branch pick label that this PR
should merge into -->
@morrySnow morrySnow mentioned this pull request Sep 5, 2025
Merged
morrySnow pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 5, 2025
@swjtu-zhanglei
branch-3.1: [fix](txn lazy commit) fix txn lazy commit conflict with …
76b1260 
…schema change #55349 (#55701)

picked from #55349
@swjtu-zhanglei swjtu-zhanglei mentioned this pull request Sep 11, 2025
Merged
16 tasks
@morrySnow morrySnow mentioned this pull request Sep 22, 2025
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@gavinchou gavinchou gavinchou approved these changes

@w41ter w41ter w41ter left review comments

@dataroaring dataroaring Awaiting requested review from dataroaring dataroaring is a code owner

+1 more reviewer

@bobhan1 bobhan1 bobhan1 approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. dev/3.0.9-merged dev/3.1.1-merged p0_w reviewed

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants

@swjtu-zhanglei @Thearas @doris-robot @gavinchou @w41ter @bobhan1 @dataroaring @morrySnow

Comments