Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user LiangchangZ commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
@jose-torres @HeartSaVioR @advancedxy Got itï¼thanks for reply.
> I think the best way to do it is to make the shuffle writer responsible
for incrementing the epoch within its task,
Github user advancedxy commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
> I think the best way to do it is to make the shuffle writer responsible
for incrementing the epoch within its task, the same way the data source writer
does currently.
Yeah,
Github user jose-torres commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
Sure, we need to support this, but the approach in this PR doesn't work if
it breaks existing tests.
I think the best way to do it is to make the shuffle writer responsible for
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
@LiangchangZ
> In the real CP situation, reader and writer may be always in different
tasks, right?
Continuous mode already supports some valid use cases, and putting all in
Github user LiangchangZ commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
> Have you run the unit tests? I wouldn't expect them to pass with this
change.
@jose-torres UT test of ContinuousAggregationSuite, ContinuousSuite failed.
But I think
Github user LiangchangZ commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
> Looks like the patch is needed only with #21353 #21332 #21293 as of now,
right? If then please
> state the condition in JIRA issue description as well as PR's description
so that we
Github user xuanyuanking commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
```
Looks like the patch is needed only with #21353 #21332 #21293 as of now,
right?
```
@HeartSaVioR Yes, sorry for the late explanation. The background is we are
running POC based
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
@LiangchangZ
Looks like the patch is needed only with #21353 #21332 #21293 as of now,
right? If then please state the condition in JIRA issue description as well as
PR's description so
Github user jose-torres commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
Agreed with the above. Have you run the unit tests? I wouldn't expect them
to pass with this change.
---
-
To unsubscribe,
Github user LiangchangZ commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
cc @jose-torres @xuanyuanking
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands,
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21445
Can one of the admins verify this patch?
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
14 matches
Mail list logo
