Skip to content

branch-4.1: [fix](orc) handle cancellation during condition cache seek #67141 - #67321

Merged
yiguolei merged 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-67141-branch-4.1
Aug 31, 2026
Merged

branch-4.1: [fix](orc) handle cancellation during condition cache seek #67141#67321
yiguolei merged 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-67141-branch-4.1

Conversation

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Cherry-picked from #67141

### What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: DORIS-28199

Problem Summary:

Condition-cache granule skipping can call ORC seekToRow before the
existing nextBatch exception boundary. When a query is cancelled during
that I/O, the ORC input stream throws a stop exception that escapes
get_block and may terminate the BE process.

### Release note

Fix BE process termination when an ORC scan is cancelled during
condition-cache seeking.

### Check List (For Author)

- Test
    - [x] Regression test
    - [x] Unit Test
    - [ ] Manual test
    - [ ] No need to test or manual test.

Verification: NewOrcReaderTest.* passed 163/163 under ASAN_UT.
Clang-format 16 passed for both affected C++ files.

- Behavior changed:
    - [ ] No.
- [x] Yes. Cancellation during a condition-cache seek now returns clean
EOF instead of allowing the ORC stop exception to escape.

- Does this need documentation?
    - [x] No.
    - [ ] Yes.

### Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

- [ ] Confirm the release note
- [ ] Confirm test cases
- [ ] Confirm document
- [ ] Add branch pick label
@github-actions
github-actions Bot requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner August 31, 2026 02:45
@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?

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

run buildall

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

BE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 66.67% (4/6) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 59.53% (25795/43330)
Line Coverage 44.06% (264684/600761)
Region Coverage 39.97% (209864/525034)
Branch Coverage 41.41% (96952/234101)

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 66.67% (4/6) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 74.27% (31361/42224)
Line Coverage 58.44% (348476/596270)
Region Coverage 55.21% (290665/526426)
Branch Coverage 55.98% (130934/233891)

@yiguolei

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

skip buildall

@yiguolei
yiguolei merged commit 367b8df into branch-4.1 Aug 31, 2026
29 of 32 checks passed
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Aug 31, 2026
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. reviewed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants