XComp commented on code in PR #20590:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/20590#discussion_r949096186
##########
flink-kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/kubernetes/highavailability/KubernetesStateHandleStore.java:
##########
@@ -213,14 +214,26 @@ public RetrievableStateHandle<T> addAndLock(String key, T
state)
// initialize flag to serve the failure case
boolean discardState = true;
+ final AtomicInteger retryNum = new AtomicInteger(0);
try {
// a successful operation will result in the state not being
discarded
discardState =
!updateConfigMap(
cm -> {
+ retryNum.incrementAndGet();
try {
return addEntry(cm, key,
serializedStoreHandle);
} catch (Exception e) {
+ // It could happen the fabric8 k8s
client retries a
+ // transaction that has already
succeeded due to network
+ // issues. We let the
AlreadyExistException caused by
+ //
PossibleInconsistentStateException here to avoid
+ // discarding the state.
+ if (retryNum.get() > 1
+ && e instanceof
AlreadyExistException) {
+ e.initCause(
Review Comment:
> I agree with you that the WARNING log in the CheckpointCoordinator is
unexpected. But how could this cause the checkpoint creation for the current
run to fail? It is actually triggered successfully without subsuming the old
one. And it will be subsumed in the next triggering checkpoint.
The warning we talked about is created in the `catch` block in
[CheckpointCoordinator:1411-1431](https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/88b309b7dcad269ad084eab5e2944724daf6dee4/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/checkpoint/CheckpointCoordinator.java#L1411-L1431).
At the end of the `catch` block, a `CheckpointException` is thrown which will
cause the checkpoint to fail as far as I can see.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@flink.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
