924060929 commented on PR #63366:
URL: https://github.com/apache/doris/pull/63366#issuecomment-4674684816

   ### Follow-up on the [P1] check (AddLocalExchange) — removed it entirely
   
   After thinking it through (and with the CI evidence), the serial→non-serial 
validation isn't worth keeping in any form — neither throw nor warn:
   
   1. **It reads the same `isSerialOperatorOnBe` flag it would validate**, so 
it's blind to the one class of bug that actually matters — a *wrong serial 
flag*. The framework and the check would agree on the same wrong answer; a 
check can't validate an input it shares with the thing it's checking.
   2. **It fires on legitimate plans** — a serial child feeding a parent that 
requires PASSTHROUGH/noRequire (TableFunction, NLJ, Agg) needs no LE and is 
correct. So as a `warn` it cries wolf, and as a `throw` it breaks those plans 
(the 9 P0 patterns from the last run).
   3. **The one class it *could* catch** — a `require`→LE logic regression 
(e.g. a broken `satisfy()`) — the regression/RQG already catch end-to-end, just 
without the FE fail-fast.
   
   Net: it adds noise and false confidence, not safety. The real oracle is the 
end-to-end run (which is exactly what surfaced the throw's false positives — no 
FE self-check did). The principled direction is a single source of truth for 
the serial/distribution decision (BE reading the FE-written flag) so there's no 
FE-prediction-vs-BE-reality gap to police in the first place.
   
   Removed the method + its call. Correctness still comes from `enforceRequire` 
inserting the LEs, validated by the regression/RQG.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to