Skip to content

[fix](cloud) Ignore delete rowset schemas for shared schema resolution#62867

Open
Hastyshell wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
Hastyshell:fix/delete-rowset-schema-kv
Open

[fix](cloud) Ignore delete rowset schemas for shared schema resolution#62867
Hastyshell wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
Hastyshell:fix/delete-rowset-schema-kv

Conversation

@Hastyshell
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Summary

  • keep delete rowset schemas rowset-local instead of writing them into the shared schema kv
  • stop reusing delete rowset inline schemas as version_to_schema entries for other rowsets in get_rowset
  • add a cloud unit test covering delete rowset schema persistence and normal rowset schema kv writes

Testing

  • Not run locally: attempted targeted cloud UT, but the local Darwin environment is missing JDK 17 and Linux-only cloud build dependencies required to build meta_service_test

Context

  • Jira: DORIS-18558

### What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: None

Related PR: None

Problem Summary: Delete rowsets can carry FE-visible schemas after light schema changes, which should remain rowset-local instead of overwriting or being reused as the canonical schema for the same schema version.

### Release note

None

### Check List (For Author)

- Test: No need to test (added a cloud unit test, but local cloud UT build is blocked on this Darwin host by missing JDK-17/Linux-only dependencies)
- Behavior changed: Yes (MetaService no longer uses delete rowset schemas as shared schema sources)
- Does this need documentation: No
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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?

@Hastyshell
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

run buildall

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.

2 participants