Skip to content

branch-4.1: [improve](streaming-job) avoid potential OOM when reading large snapshot splits #63833#63883

Merged
yiguolei merged 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-63833-branch-4.1
May 30, 2026
Merged

branch-4.1: [improve](streaming-job) avoid potential OOM when reading large snapshot splits #63833#63883
yiguolei merged 1 commit into
branch-4.1from
auto-pick-63833-branch-4.1

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Cherry-picked from #63833

…hot splits (#63833)

## Summary
- Default-skip flink-cdc's in-snapshot backfill on the from-to path so
large splits no longer accumulate the entire chunk + backfill stream in
the fetcher's outputBuffer; from-to is at-least-once and tolerates the
duplicates this introduces. TVF (job-driven and standalone) keeps the
standard `false` default for exactly-once via per-task offset commit.
- Expose `skip_snapshot_backfill` as a user-facing property with strict
`true`/`false` validation on both from-to (CREATE JOB) and TVF (SELECT
FROM cdc_stream(...)) entry points.
- Fix snapshot completion under `pollWithoutBuffer`: a split is now
marked complete only after its high-watermark event has been consumed
(`splitState.getHighWatermark() != null`), not on the first non-empty
fetcher batch. Without this, enabling the new default truncates any
split larger than debezium's `max.batch.size` and yields an NPE on
offset extraction.
- Read `streaming_task_timeout_multiplier` live in
`StreamingMultiTblTask.isTimeout()` so `admin set frontend config`
affects already-running tasks, matching the `@ConfField(mutable=true)`
contract.
@github-actions github-actions Bot requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner May 29, 2026 03:40
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

FE Regression Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 0.00% (0/278) 🎉
Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

@yiguolei yiguolei merged commit fae70a2 into branch-4.1 May 30, 2026
29 of 32 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants