NicoK opened a new pull request #6971: [FLINK-9552][iterations] fix not syncing 
on checkpoint lock before emitting records
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6971
 
 
   ## What is the purpose of the change
   
   We need to make sure that concurrent access to the `RecordWriter` is 
protected by a lock or otherwise if multiple threads access a `RecordWriter` 
instance at the same time, we may get into any type of data corruption which 
may not be recognised immediately.
   
   It seems that everything but the `StreamIterationHead` was synchronizing on 
the checkpoint lock and hence we should sync here as well.
   
   ## Brief change log
   
   - adapt `StreamIterationHead` to synchronize on the checkpoint lock when 
emitting records, watermarks, etc.
   
   ## Verifying this change
   
   This change is already covered by existing tests, and was tested manually by 
adding a check that `RecordWriter` interactions hold the checkpoint lock (by 
default, the `RecordWriter` does not know about this lock).
   
   ## Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
   
     - Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): **no**
     - The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with 
`@Public(Evolving)`: **no**
     - The serializers: **no**
     - The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): **yes**
     - Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its 
components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: **no**
     - The S3 file system connector: **no**
   
   ## Documentation
   
     - Does this pull request introduce a new feature? **no**
     - If yes, how is the feature documented? **not applicable**
   

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


With regards,
Apache Git Services

Reply via email to