Skip to content

[fix](cloud) Avoid deleting nonexistent delete bitmap files#62967

Open
wyxxxcat wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
wyxxxcat:recycle_packed_file_with_dbm
Open

[fix](cloud) Avoid deleting nonexistent delete bitmap files#62967
wyxxxcat wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
wyxxxcat:recycle_packed_file_with_dbm

Conversation

@wyxxxcat
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

What problem does this PR solve?

When recycling rowset data, the recycler treated a missing versioned delete bitmap meta key as "not packed" and added the standalone delete bitmap object path to the delete_files request. This caused unnecessary delete object requests for <rowset_id>_delete_bitmap.db even when no delete bitmap storage metadata existed.

The fix makes delete bitmap storage handling explicit: missing meta, FDB storage, standalone file storage, and packed file storage are distinguished. The recycler now only deletes <rowset_id>_delete_bitmap.db when the metadata explicitly indicates a standalone delete bitmap file.

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #xxx

Problem Summary:

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

  • Test

    • Regression test
    • Unit Test
    • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
      • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
      • Previous test can cover this change.
      • No code files have been changed.
      • Other reason
  • Behavior changed:

    • No.
    • Yes.
  • Does this need documentation?

    • No.
    • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

  • Confirm the release note
  • Confirm test cases
  • Confirm document
  • Add branch pick label

@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?

@wyxxxcat wyxxxcat force-pushed the recycle_packed_file_with_dbm branch from 4cf09d0 to e3cfe04 Compare April 30, 2026 06:53
@wyxxxcat
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

run buildall

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@liaoxin01 liaoxin01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. label Apr 30, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approved Indicates a PR has been approved by one committer. reviewed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants