Conversation
|
|
|
|
gitedmond
marked this pull request as ready for review
September 28, 2026 03:49
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Rationale for this change
Fixes #51547. The IPC dataset scan opens a reader asynchronously, then synchronously reopens it to apply projected fields. The synchronous reopen can wait for footer IO while a generator lock is held, creating the blocking cycle described in the issue.
What changes are included in this PR?
OpenReaderAsyncpath for the projected reader reopen.Are these changes tested?
arrow-dataset-file-ipc-testpassed.git diff --checkand formatting of changed lines passed.The reporter’s intermittent R workload was not reproduced here; this test isolates the blocking reader reopen that their stacks identified.
Are there any user-facing changes?
IPC dataset scans no longer block during the projected reader reopen. There is no public API change.
Was AI used for this PR?
PR code and description written by:
Reviewed before submission by:
AI assistance implemented the C++ change and regression test, inspected the code path, and ran the before/after tests. This draft is available for human review.