juliuszsompolski commented on code in PR #42399:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/42399#discussion_r1295970244
##########
python/pyspark/sql/connect/client/core.py:
##########
@@ -1630,35 +1643,25 @@ def __iter__(self) -> Generator[AttemptManager, None,
None]:
A generator that yields the current attempt.
"""
retry_state = RetryState()
- while True:
- # Check if the operation was completed successfully.
- if retry_state.done():
- break
-
- # If the number of retries have exceeded the maximum allowed
retries.
- if retry_state.count() > self._max_retries:
- e = retry_state.exception()
- if e is not None:
- raise e
- else:
- raise PySparkRuntimeError(
- error_class="EXCEED_RETRY",
- message_parameters={},
- )
+ next_backoff: float = self._initial_backoff
+
+ if self._max_retries < 0:
+ raise ValueError("Can't have negative number of retries")
+ while not retry_state.done() and retry_state.count() <=
self._max_retries:
# Do backoff
if retry_state.count() > 0:
- backoff = random.randrange(
- 0,
- int(
- min(
- self._initial_backoff * self._backoff_multiplier
** retry_state.count(),
- self._max_backoff,
- )
- ),
- )
- logger.debug(f"Retrying call after {backoff} ms sleep")
- # Pythons sleep takes seconds as arguments.
- time.sleep(backoff / 1000.0)
+ # Randomize backoff for this iteration
+ backoff = next_backoff
+ next_backoff = min(self._max_backoff, next_backoff *
self._backoff_multiplier)
+
+ if backoff >= self._min_jitter_threshold:
+ backoff += random.uniform(0, self._jitter)
+ logger.debug(f"Retrying call after {backoff} ms sleep")
+ self._sleep(backoff / 1000.0)
yield AttemptManager(self._can_retry, retry_state)
+
+ if not retry_state.done():
+ # Exceeded number of retries, throw last exception we had
+ raise retry_state.exception()
Review Comment:
@itholic
> If the error is a user-facing error, PySpark uses PySpark custom errors
such as PySparkRuntimeError as a policy
I assume that means: any exception that can bubble up to user, even if it
should never be happening?
nit: For such cases, would it make sense to introduce a catch-all
ILLEGAL_INTERNAL_STATE class, instead of adding a custom class in every case?
--
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]
