Skip to content

Allow read+append against data rearrangement #289

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JassAbidi
Copy link
Contributor

This PR improves the conflict detection logic by treating the following case.
when the winning commit rearranges data (enabled by #223) and the current transaction is just reading and appending files, the current commit should be allowed.

@databricks-cla-assistant
Copy link

databricks-cla-assistant commented Dec 25, 2019

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

Copy link
Collaborator

@mukulmurthy mukulmurthy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for sending this PR! When doing the last round of conflict detection changes, @tdas realized that this case could possibly be allowed but hadn't gotten time to code + test it. He's on vacation right now; do you mind waiting a couple weeks until he's back and can look over it in detail?

}
}

test("bloc delete against data rearrange") {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

block

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @mukulmurthy, thank you for your response. No problem :)

@@ -486,6 +486,11 @@ trait OptimisticTransactionImpl extends TransactionalWrite with SQLMetricsReport
} else {
changedDataAddedFiles ++= winningCommitActions.collect { case a: AddFile => a }
}
val rearrangeOnly =

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You might consider turning both checks into functions, they are used 1-2 more times throughout the file.

@JassAbidi
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tdas can you please take a look on this PR please.

@tdas
Copy link
Contributor

tdas commented Mar 31, 2020

Will take a look. Currently a bit busy trying to get all the critical things in for 0.6.0 release. This PR is a bit tricky, so it wont make it in this release. I will take a look at it after the 0.6.0 release, probably next week.

@JassAbidi
Copy link
Contributor Author

JassAbidi commented Oct 4, 2020

@tdas still waiting for you to evaluate this PR :) can you please take a look at it.

tdas pushed a commit to tdas/delta that referenced this pull request May 31, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants