[branch-52] fix: DynamicFilterPhysicalExpr violates Hash/Eq contract (#19659)#19705
Merged
xudong963 merged 1 commit intoapache:branch-52from Jan 9, 2026
Merged
[branch-52] fix: DynamicFilterPhysicalExpr violates Hash/Eq contract (#19659)#19705xudong963 merged 1 commit intoapache:branch-52from
xudong963 merged 1 commit intoapache:branch-52from
Conversation
## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Closes apache#19641. ## Rationale for this change `DynamicFilterPhysicalExpr` violates the `Hash/Eq` contract because the `Hash` and `PartialEq` implementations each call `self.current()` which acquires separate `RwLock::read()` locks. This allows the underlying expression to change between `hash()` and `eq()` calls via `update()`, causing: - HashMap key instability (keys "disappear" after update) - Potential infinite loops during HashMap operations - Corrupted HashMap state during concurrent access <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> ## What changes are included in this PR? Replaced content-based Hash/Eq with identity-based implementations: - Hash: Uses `Arc::as_ptr(&self.inner)` instead of hashing the mutable expression content - PartialEq: Uses `Arc::ptr_eq(&self.inner)` instead of comparing expression content via locks <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> ## Are these changes tested? Yes <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
alamb
changed the title
This was referenced Jan 8, 2026
adriangb
approved these changes
Jan 8, 2026
15 tasks
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
4 participants
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.
Which issue does this PR close?
52.0.0(Dec 2025 / Jan 2026) #18566Rationale for this change
I propose back porting the fix for #19641 to 52 release
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
eYes
Are there any user-facing changes?
bug fix