Skip to content

branch-3.0: [Fix](recycler) Fix transaction label recycling to prevent key cleanup failures and 'key not found' errors #50766 #50814

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
dataroaring merged 1 commit into from
May 13, 2025
Merged

branch-3.0: [Fix](recycler) Fix transaction label recycling to prevent key cleanup failures and 'key not found' errors #50766 #50814

dataroaring merged 1 commit into from
May 13, 2025

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot commented May 12, 2025

Cherry-picked from #50766

@Yukang-Lian
[Fix](recycler) Fix transaction label recycling to prevent key cleanu…
e194bdd 
…p failures and 'key not found' errors (#50766)

Related PR: #50037 

If an error occurs during transaction label recycling, the vector
recording keys cannot be cleaned up. Keys that were already cleaned up
in the previous scan and recycle cycle will be carried over to the next
scan and recycle cycle, causing a large number of 'key not found'
errors.
@github-actions github-actions bot requested a review from dataroaring as a code owner May 12, 2025 10:04
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented May 12, 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?

@dataroaring dataroaring reopened this May 12, 2025
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented May 12, 2025

run buildall

@doris-robot
Copy link

doris-robot commented May 12, 2025

Cloud UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (6/6) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 83.09% (1091/1313)
Line Coverage 66.10% (18064/27327)
Region Coverage 65.58% (8885/13548)
Branch Coverage 55.51% (4797/8642)

dataroaring
dataroaring approved these changes May 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
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

@dataroaring dataroaring merged commit 4bc9ddc into branch-3.0 May 13, 2025
23 of 24 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot deleted the auto-pick-50766-branch-3.0 branch May 13, 2025 13:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@dataroaring dataroaring dataroaring approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@hello-stephen @doris-robot @dataroaring @Yukang-Lian