Skip to content

branch-3.1: [fix](txn lazy commit) fix txn lazy commit conflict with schema change #55349 #55701

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
morrySnow merged 1 commit into from
Sep 5, 2025
Merged

branch-3.1: [fix](txn lazy commit) fix txn lazy commit conflict with schema change #55349 #55701

morrySnow merged 1 commit into from
Sep 5, 2025

Conversation

@swjtu-zhanglei
Copy link
Contributor

@swjtu-zhanglei swjtu-zhanglei commented Sep 5, 2025 •
edited by morrySnow
Loading

picked from #55349

@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 -->
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen 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

swjtu-zhanglei commented Sep 5, 2025

run buildall

@doris-robot
Copy link

doris-robot commented Sep 5, 2025

Cloud UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (11/11) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 82.02% (1218/1485)
Line Coverage 65.94% (21827/33100)
Region Coverage 67.43% (10977/16279)
Branch Coverage 57.07% (5801/10164)

@morrySnow morrySnow changed the title [fix](txn lazy commit) fix txn lazy commit conflict with schema change (#55349) branch-3.1: [fix](txn lazy commit) fix txn lazy commit conflict with schema change #55349 Sep 5, 2025
@morrySnow morrySnow merged commit 76b1260 into apache:branch-3.1 Sep 5, 2025
24 checks passed
@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

@morrySnow morrySnow morrySnow 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.

4 participants

@swjtu-zhanglei @hello-stephen @doris-robot @morrySnow