-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 199
Smart conn #637
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
Merged
Merged
Smart conn #637
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
43d6392
Dbug codes
5e47f52
Merge branch 'master' into smart-conn
9add524
Merge branch 'master' into smart-conn
823ea05
Commit the snapshot tx in row table at the end of task
f20177e
Merge branch 'master' into smart-conn
cbd8962
Cleaned up the code
a24bcc0
Link store
8fe76b2
Review comments
f7f783a
Merge branch 'master' into smart-conn
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Submodule store
updated
from aa8737 to 6e547b
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't this be done after all tasks are done? Won't a commit in the middle of another task execution cause trouble?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes in general. But for read operations if the txState is already being used in an iterator , even if the state is closed, we compare with the snapshot stored.
For write operations this would cause issue if tx are committed by a task prematurely, however currently I haven't found a scenario for that in this task.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@suranjan
Even then a read in a collocated join may not even be scheduled (or scheduled by Spark but not by OS) while another task commits. In that case the two will use different snapshots? I don't see what kind of semantics this change is trying to provide.