snleee commented on a change in pull request #5443:
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-pinot/pull/5443#discussion_r430115405
##########
File path:
pinot-core/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/core/operator/CombineOperator.java
##########
@@ -168,13 +168,13 @@ public IntermediateResultsBlock callJob()
try {
mergedBlock = mergedBlockFuture.get(endTimeMs -
System.currentTimeMillis(), TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
- LOGGER.error("Caught InterruptedException.", e);
+ LOGGER.error("Caught InterruptedException. (brokerRequest = {})",
_brokerRequest, e);
Review comment:
I prefer brokerRequest. Otherwise, we need one more look up from the
broker side, which will increase the time for debugging. Also, it's possible
that broker side use the log sampling feature.
How do you think?
##########
File path:
pinot-core/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/core/operator/CombineOperator.java
##########
@@ -168,13 +168,13 @@ public IntermediateResultsBlock callJob()
try {
mergedBlock = mergedBlockFuture.get(endTimeMs -
System.currentTimeMillis(), TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
- LOGGER.error("Caught InterruptedException.", e);
+ LOGGER.error("Caught InterruptedException. (brokerRequest = {})",
_brokerRequest, e);
Review comment:
Also, I checked the code and `brokerRequest` doesn't have the
`requestId`. `instanceRequest` has the `requestId`. So, printing
`brokerRequest` here looks like a better option to us.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
