TEZ-4406: Use Path.getFilesystem api to get the correct FileSystem object for given staging path#201
Merged
rbalamohan merged 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom Apr 25, 2022
Merged
Conversation
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Contributor
Author
|
@rbalamohan and @abstractdog |
Contributor
|
Thanks for the patch @guptanikhil007. Looks like this is a corner case scenario with large IPC limits. Patch looks good to me. +1 |
Contributor
Author
|
@rbalamohan Can you please merge this as well? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Use Path.getFilesystem api to get the correct FileSystem object for given staging path
Why are the changes needed?
To prevent Wrong FS issue when the staging directory and warehouse root are on different storage locations and tez-conf size exceeds the IPC limit.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Manual tests.