[fix](process list) return unexpected result in FULL mode#64631
Open
morrySnow wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
[fix](process list) return unexpected result in FULL mode#64631morrySnow wants to merge 1 commit into
morrySnow wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
2 issues: - self fe check is not stable - rpc privilege check should use ADMIN instead of GRANT related PR: apache#25052 apache#50939
Contributor
|
Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris. Please clearly describe your PR:
|
Contributor
Author
|
run buildall |
Contributor
Author
|
/review |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Automated review summary for PR #64631:
I did not find blocking issues in the changed code.
Critical checkpoint conclusions:
- Goal/test proof: The PR changes FE self-identification from host comparison to
nodeNamein the process-list/frontend metadata paths, and aligns the RPC process-list privilege check with the localADMINcheck. The changed code matches that goal. I did not see a new dedicated test, so coverage appears to rely on existing process-list/frontend behavior and CI. - Scope/focus: The GitHub PR diff is limited to
FrontendsProcNodeandConnectPoolMgr, and the change is small and focused. - Concurrency/locking: No new shared mutable state, locking, or lock-order changes. Existing concurrent connection-map iteration behavior is unchanged.
- Lifecycle/static initialization: No new lifecycle or static-initialization concerns.
- Configuration/compatibility/protocol: No new config or thrift fields. The RPC behavior change is limited to the authorization predicate.
- Parallel paths: The touched local and RPC process-list authorization paths are now consistent on
ADMIN; the touched FE self checks now use stable node identity. - Tests/results: No test files changed and I did not run local tests during this review.
- Observability: No additional logging or metrics appear necessary for this narrow change.
- Transactions/persistence/data writes/FE-BE variable passing: Not applicable.
- Performance: No material performance impact; the code still performs the same list iteration/filtering.
- User focus: No additional user-provided review focus points were present.
Contributor
FE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
Contributor
FE Regression Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
Contributor
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 29375 ms |
Contributor
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 175366 ms |
Contributor
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 25.28 s |
Contributor
FE Regression Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What problem does this PR solve?
Related PR: #25052 #50939
Problem Summary:
2 issues:
Release note
None
Check List (For Author)
Test
Behavior changed:
Does this need documentation?
Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)