Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[fix](process list) return unexpected result in FULL mode - #64631
Conversation
2 issues: - self fe check is not stable - rpc privilege check should use ADMIN instead of GRANT related PR: apache#25052apache#50939
hello-stephen
commented
Jun 18, 2026
Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris. Please clearly describe your PR:
|
morrySnow
commented
Jun 18, 2026
run buildall |
morrySnow
commented
Jun 18, 2026
/review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Automated review summary for PR #64631:
I did not find blocking issues in the changed code.
Critical checkpoint conclusions:
- Goal/test proof: The PR changes FE self-identification from host comparison to
nodeNamein the process-list/frontend metadata paths, and aligns the RPC process-list privilege check with the localADMINcheck. The changed code matches that goal. I did not see a new dedicated test, so coverage appears to rely on existing process-list/frontend behavior and CI. - Scope/focus: The GitHub PR diff is limited to
FrontendsProcNodeandConnectPoolMgr, and the change is small and focused. - Concurrency/locking: No new shared mutable state, locking, or lock-order changes. Existing concurrent connection-map iteration behavior is unchanged.
- Lifecycle/static initialization: No new lifecycle or static-initialization concerns.
- Configuration/compatibility/protocol: No new config or thrift fields. The RPC behavior change is limited to the authorization predicate.
- Parallel paths: The touched local and RPC process-list authorization paths are now consistent on
ADMIN; the touched FE self checks now use stable node identity. - Tests/results: No test files changed and I did not run local tests during this review.
- Observability: No additional logging or metrics appear necessary for this narrow change.
- Transactions/persistence/data writes/FE-BE variable passing: Not applicable.
- Performance: No material performance impact; the code still performs the same list iteration/filtering.
- User focus: No additional user-provided review focus points were present.
hello-stephen
commented
Jun 18, 2026
FE UT Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
hello-stephen
commented
Jun 18, 2026
FE Regression Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
hello-stephen
commented
Jun 18, 2026
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 29375 ms |
hello-stephen
commented
Jun 18, 2026
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 175366 ms |
hello-stephen
commented
Jun 18, 2026
ClickBench: Total hot run time: 25.28 s |
hello-stephen
commented
Jun 18, 2026
FE Regression Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
PR approved by anyone and no changes requested. |
What problem does this PR solve?
Related PR: #25052#50939
Problem Summary:
2 issues:
Release note
None
Check List (For Author)
Test
Behavior changed:
Does this need documentation?
Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)