[SPARK-XXXX] Rocks db state store orphan removal protection #52209
+97
−22
Conversation
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
…e between two file managers
github-actions
bot
removed
DEPLOY
GRAPHX
BUILD
SPARK SHELL
YARN
EXAMPLES
DOCS
CORE
INFRA
PYTHON
R
DSTREAM
AVRO
PANDAS API ON SPARK
CONNECT
PROTOBUF
labels
PedroMDuarte
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR addresses the issue described in this spark dev mailing list thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/27bg3gsd4czpd4o0ybvc2pxv6qhmpbfb
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Include timestamps of all retained .zip files in the timestamp threshold used to detect orphaned files. This helps protect against state store corruption when multiple file managers are simultaneously running maintenance for the same partition.
Why are the changes needed?
To avoid state store corruption.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
A new test was added that goes over the problem. The test is added in the first commit in this PR.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No