Github user kayousterhout commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/16639#discussion_r103014993
--- Diff: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/executor/Executor.scala ---
@@ -400,8 +410,16 @@ private[spark] class Executor(
execBackend.statusUpdate(taskId, TaskState.FINISHED,
serializedResult)
} catch {
- case ffe: FetchFailedException =>
- val reason = ffe.toTaskFailedReason
+ case t: Throwable if hasFetchFailure =>
+ val reason = task.context.fetchFailed.get.toTaskFailedReason
+ if (!t.isInstanceOf[FetchFailedException]) {
+ // there was a fetch failure in the task, but some user code
wrapped that exception
+ // and threw something else. Regardless, we treat it as a
fetch failure.
+ logWarning(s"TID ${taskId} encountered a
${classOf[FetchFailedException]} and " +
+ s"failed, but did not directly throw the
${classOf[FetchFailedException]}. " +
+ s"Spark is still handling the fetch failure, but these
exceptions should not be " +
+ s"intercepted by user code.")
--- End diff --
I worry that this is slightly misleading because there's not necessarily
anything *bad* happening here (e.g., in the SQL case), and the user-thrown
exception is getting permanently lost. What about something more like
```
logWarning(s"TID ${taskId} encountered a ${classOf[FetchFailedException]}
and " +
s"failed, but the ${classOf[FetchFailedException]} was
hidden by another " +
s"exception: $t. Spark is handling this like a fetch
failure and ignoring the " +
s"other exception.")
```
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
