-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.6k
Restrict remote ENRICH after FORK #131945
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
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8ac9dbe
Restrict remote LOOKUP JOIN after FORK
smalyshev 98c334d
Update docs/changelog/131945.yaml
smalyshev d1d1971
Refactor and make For a pipeline breaker
smalyshev 0acfc48
Add comment
smalyshev 1b47591
Merge branch 'main' into remote-enrich-fork
smalyshev 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | ||
pr: 131945 | ||
summary: Restrict remote ENRICH after FORK | ||
area: ES|QL | ||
type: bug | ||
issues: | ||
- 131445 |
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Hmm, pipeline breakers are also being used in node-/cluster-level reduction here; I don't think this applies to FORK, as FORK cannot be applied in multiple steps (yet?); each FORK branch seems to be hooked up to the same exchange sink on the coordinator. @ioanatia , please correct me if I'm wrong.
We may be introducing a subtle bug here, or maybe not; in any case, it indicates that the
PipelineBreaker
interface needs further refinement, because for validation purposesFORK
definitely is a pipeline breaker, even if it can't be used for node-/cluster-level reduction.Maybe we should just add a method
PipelineBreaker#isReducer
or similar? It could default totrue
and returnfalse
forFork
.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.
I am not sure adding
PipelineBreaker
has any effect at all.PipelineBreaker
is indeed used here - but I don't see in which case we would ever get to a point where aFragmentExec
contains a logical plan that contains aFork
plan. Let me know if that's not the case.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.
Thanks for confirming @ioanatia, that makes sense ! If we're never pulling FORKS out of fragments, then this change should be safe.
If we're marking
Fork
asPipelineBreaker
, maybe we could at least add a comment here to remind future us thatFork
's never going to show up here.