[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23815?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Weijie Guo updated FLINK-23815:
-------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 2.1.0
(was: 2.0.0)
> Separate the concerns of PendingCheckpoint and CheckpointPlan
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-23815
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23815
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Runtime / Checkpointing
> Reporter: Yun Gao
> Assignee: Yun Gao
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available, stale-assigned
> Fix For: 2.1.0
>
>
> As discussed in
> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16655#issuecomment-899603149:
> {quote}
> When dealing with a PendingCheckpoint, should one be forced to also deal with
> a CheckpointPlan at all? I think not, the PendingCheckpoint is purely a
> tracker of gathered states and how many tasks have acknowledged and how many
> we are still waiting for. That makes testing, reusability, etc. simple.
> That means we should strive to have the PendingCheckpoint independent of
> CheckpointPlan. I think we can achieve this with the following steps:
> Much of the reason to have the CheckpointPlan in PendingCheckpoint is
> because the CheckpointCoordinator often requires access to the checkpoint
> plan for a pending checkpoint. And it just uses the PendingCheckpoint as a
> convenient way to store the CheckpointPlan.
> A cleaner solution would be changing in CheckpointCoordinator the
> Map<Long, PendingCheckpoint> pendingCheckpoints to a Map<Long,
> Tuple2<CheckpointPlan, PendingCheckpoint>> pendingCheckpoints. The
> CheckpointCoordinator would keep the two things it frequently needs together
> in a tuple, rather than storing one in the other and thus expanding the
> scope/concerns of PendingCheckpoint.
> The above change should allow us to reduce the interface of
> PendingCheckpoint.checkpointPlan to
> PendingCheckpointFinishedTaskStateProvider.
> The interface PendingCheckpointFinishedTaskStateProvider has some methods
> that are about tracking state, not just about giving access to finished
> state: void reportTaskFinishedOnRestore(ExecutionVertex task) and void
> reportTaskHasFinishedOperators(ExecutionVertex task);.
> I am wondering if those two would not be more cleanly handled outside the
> PendingCheckpoint as well. Meaning in the method
> CheckpointCoordinator.receiveAcknowledgeMessage() we handle the reporting of
> finished operators to the CheckpointPlan. The method
> PendingCheckpoint.acknowledgeTask() only deals with the states.
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
