Github user rezasafi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
@tejasapatil @kmanamcheri any update? thank you very much in advance.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Github user kmanamcheri commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
> Based on my understanding, the solution of FB team is to retry the
following commands multiple times:
>
> ```
> getPartitionsByFilterMethod.invoke(hive, table,
Github user gatorsmile commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
Based on my understanding, the solution of FB team is to retry the
following commands multiple times:
```
getPartitionsByFilterMethod.invoke(hive, table,
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/97126/
Test PASSed.
---
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
**[Test build #97126 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/97126/testReport)**
for PR 22614 at commit
Github user kmanamcheri commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
@gatorsmile, @tejasapatil was reviewing the code before I added the new
config option. I have asked him to review the new code. Lets see what his
thoughts are on that. I have also asked him
Github user vanzin commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
> a better and safer solution by introducing exponential backoff with
retries
I'm confused about that suggestion. What is being retried? The user query?
The HMS call? What is changing in
Github user gatorsmile commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
Also, https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614#discussion_r223172392
proposes a better and safer solution by introducing `exponential backoff with
retries`. @kmanamcheri Could you update your
Github user gatorsmile commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
As @tejasapatil suggested above, this fallback is not suggested to be on in
a prod setting. It could also impact the system health (e.g., the other
concurrent queries that are querying the same
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/97119/
Test PASSed.
---
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
**[Test build #97119 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/97119/testReport)**
for PR 22614 at commit
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
**[Test build #97126 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/97126/testReport)**
for PR 22614 at commit
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
**[Test build #97119 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/97119/testReport)**
for PR 22614 at commit
Github user kmanamcheri commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22614
@viirya I have updated the title and description.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For
16 matches
Mail list logo
