Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[flink][cdc] Add support for retry cnt instead of busy wait and additional support to skip corrupt records in cdc writer #4295

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AshishKhatkar
Copy link
Contributor

Purpose

This change adds support for retry count and skipping corrupt records instead of assuming a schema change has happened and waiting indefinitely on schema change. This change will cause the Flink cdc job to fail loudly due to a corrupt message (alternatively users have an option to use config option to log and skip such messages) instead of waiting indefinitely on schema change which might not have happened. For more details check the linked issue.

Linked issue: close #4239

Tests

API and Format

Documentation

…ional support to skip corrupt records in cdc writer
@@ -48,15 +48,33 @@ public class CdcRecordStoreWriteOperator extends TableWriteOperator<CdcRecord> {
.durationType()
.defaultValue(Duration.ofMillis(500));

public static final ConfigOption<Integer> MAX_RETRY_NUM_TIMES =
ConfigOptions.key("cdc.max-retry-num-times")
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should we prefix the new options with retry- similar to the already existing one cdc.retry-sleep-time?
e.g. cdc.retry-count and cdc.retry-skip-corrupt-record?

public static final ConfigOption<Boolean> SKIP_CORRUPT_RECORD =
ConfigOptions.key("cdc.skip-corrupt-record")
.booleanType()
.defaultValue(false)
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

whether this is true or false, it will change the current default behaviour of waiting indefinitely for a schema change. so we could either add an option to preserve the current behaviour as default and make retries optional. or make sure patch notes contain an info about the breaking change that paimon will no longer wait indefinitely for schema updates but rather retry and optionally skip unreadable rows.

@@ -75,7 +93,7 @@ public void processElement(StreamRecord<CdcRecord> element) throws Exception {
CdcRecord record = element.getValue();
Optional<GenericRow> optionalConverted = toGenericRow(record, table.schema().fields());
if (!optionalConverted.isPresent()) {
while (true) {
for (int retry = 0; retry < maxRetryNumTimes; ++retry) {
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: to me it's slightly unusual to increment the retry counter before entering the block. but i guess it does the same thing as int retry = 0; retry <= maxRetryNumTimes; retry++ and is just preference

throw new IOException(e);
if (!optionalConverted.isPresent()) {
if (skipCorruptRecord) {
LOG.warn("Skipping corrupt or unparsable record {}", record);
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just a note that this might leak sensitive data to the log system. maybe we can log some metadata about the record instead of the full record?

if (skipCorruptRecord) {
LOG.warn("Skipping corrupt or unparsable record {}", record);
} else {
throw new RuntimeException("Unable to process element. Possibly a corrupt record");
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can we include some info about the record in the exception too?

@gmdfalk
Copy link

gmdfalk commented Oct 9, 2024

Maybe we can add a few unit tests and some docs for the new options?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants