Yea, that sounds good to me. 2018-01-19 18:29 GMT+09:00 Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca>:
> So it is pretty core, but its one of the better indirectly tested > components. I think probably the most reasonable path is to see what the > diff ends up looking like and make a call at that point for if we want it > to go to master or master & branch-2.3? > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > So given that it fixes some real world bugs, any particular reason >> why? Would you be comfortable with doing it in 2.3.1? >> >> Ah, I don't feel strongly about this but RC2 will be running on and >> cloudpickle's quite core fix to PySpark. Just thought we might want to have >> enough time with it. >> >> One worry is, upgrading it includes a fix about namedtuple too where >> PySpark has a custom fix. >> I would like to check few things about this. >> >> So, yea, it's vague. I wouldn't stay against if you'd prefer. >> >> >> >> >> 2018-01-19 16:42 GMT+09:00 Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca>: >> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 19, 2018 7:28 PM, "Hyukjin Kwon" <gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Is it an option to match the latest version of cloudpickle and still >>> set protocol level 2? >>> >>> IMHO, I think this can be an option but I am not fully sure yet if we >>> should/could go ahead for it within Spark 2.X. I need some >>> investigations including things about Pyrolite. >>> >>> Let's go ahead with matching it to 0.4.2 first. I am quite clear on >>> matching it to 0.4.2 at least. >>> >>> So given that there is a follow up on which fixes a regression if we're >>> not comfortable doing the latest version let's double-check that the >>> version we do upgrade to doesn't have that regression. >>> >>> >>> >>> > I agree that upgrading to try and match version 0.4.2 would be a good >>> starting point. Unless no one objects, I will open up a JIRA and try to do >>> this. >>> >>> Yup but I think we shouldn't make this into Spark 2.3.0 to be clear. >>> >>> So given that it fixes some real world bugs, any particular reason why? >>> Would you be comfortable with doing it in 2.3.1? >>> >>> >>> >>> > Also lets try to keep track in our commit messages which version of >>> cloudpickle we end up upgrading to. >>> >>> +1: PR description, commit message or any unit to identify each will be >>> useful. >>> It should be easier once we have a matched version. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2018-01-19 12:55 GMT+09:00 Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca>: >>> >>>> So if there are different version of Python on the cluster machines I >>>> think that's already unsupported so I'm not worried about that. >>>> >>>> I'd suggest going to the highest released version since there appear to >>>> be some useful fixes between 0.4.2 & 0.5.2 >>>> >>>> Also lets try to keep track in our commit messages which version of >>>> cloudpickle we end up upgrading to. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Bryan Cutler <cutl...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for all the details and background Hyukjin! Regarding the >>>>> pickle protocol change, if I understand correctly, it is currently at >>>>> level >>>>> 2 in Spark which is good for backwards compatibility for all of Python 2. >>>>> Choosing HIGHEST_PROTOCOL, which is the default for cloudpickle 0.5.0 and >>>>> above, will pick a level determined by your Python version. So is the >>>>> concern here for Spark if someone has different versions of Python in >>>>> their >>>>> cluster, like 3.5 and 3.3, then different protocols will be used and >>>>> deserialization might fail? Is it an option to match the latest version >>>>> of >>>>> cloudpickle and still set protocol level 2? >>>>> >>>>> I agree that upgrading to try and match version 0.4.2 would be a good >>>>> starting point. Unless no one objects, I will open up a JIRA and try to do >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Bryan >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Bryan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Yup, I support to match the version. I pushed it forward before to >>>>>> match it with https://github.com/cloudpipe/cloudpickle >>>>>> before few times in Spark's copy and also cloudpickle itself with few >>>>>> fixes. I believe our copy is closest to 0.4.1. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have been trying to follow up the changes in cloudpipe/cloudpickle >>>>>> for which version we should match, I think we should match >>>>>> it with 0.4.2 first (I need to double check) because IMHO they have >>>>>> been adding rather radical changes from 0.5.0, including >>>>>> pickle protocol change (by default). >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I would like to match it with the latest because there >>>>>> have been some important changes. For >>>>>> example, see this too - https://github.com/cloudpipe >>>>>> /cloudpickle/pull/138 (it's pending for reviewing yet) eventually >>>>>> but 0.4.2 should be >>>>>> a good start point. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the strategy, I think we can match it and follow 0.4.x within >>>>>> Spark for the conservative and safe choice + minimal cost. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I tried to leave few explicit answers to the questions from you, >>>>>> Bryan: >>>>>> >>>>>> > Spark is currently using a forked version and it seems like >>>>>> updates are made every now and then when >>>>>> > needed, but it's not really clear where the current state is and >>>>>> how much it has diverged. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am quite sure our cloudpickle copy is closer to 0.4.1 IIRC. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > Are there any known issues with recent changes from those that >>>>>> follow cloudpickle dev? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am technically involved in cloudpickle dev although less active. >>>>>> They changed default pickle protocol (https://github.com/cloudpipe/ >>>>>> cloudpickle/pull/127). So, if we target 0.5.x+, we should double >>>>>> check >>>>>> the potential compatibility issue, or fix the protocol, which I >>>>>> believe is introduced from 0.5.x. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2018-01-16 11:43 GMT+09:00 Bryan Cutler <cutl...@gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've seen a couple issues lately related to cloudpickle, notably >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-22674, and would like >>>>>>> to get some feedback on updating the version in PySpark which should fix >>>>>>> these issues and allow us to remove some workarounds. Spark is >>>>>>> currently >>>>>>> using a forked version and it seems like updates are made every now and >>>>>>> then when needed, but it's not really clear where the current state is >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> how much it has diverged. This makes back-porting fixes difficult. >>>>>>> There >>>>>>> was a previous discussion on moving it to a dependency here >>>>>>> <http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/PYTHON-DISCUSS-Moving-to-cloudpickle-and-or-Py4J-as-a-dependencies-td20954.html>, >>>>>>> but given the status right now I think it would be best to do another >>>>>>> update and bring things closer to upstream before we talk about >>>>>>> completely >>>>>>> moving it outside of Spark. Before starting another update, it might be >>>>>>> good to discuss the strategy a little. Should the version in Spark be >>>>>>> derived from a release or at least tied to a specific commit? It would >>>>>>> also be good if we can document where it has diverged. Are there any >>>>>>> known >>>>>>> issues with recent changes from those that follow cloudpickle dev? Any >>>>>>> other thoughts or concerns? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Bryan >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >
