BUG: fix stringdtype singleton thread safety #28862
Merged
Conversation
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
seberg
approved these changes
Apr 29, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #28813.
Two orthogonal but related fixes.
First, to guard against newly created StringDType instances being shared between threads, we acquire the allocator lock before reading and possibly setting the
array_ownedflag on a descriptor passed to the descriptor finalization function.Second, I completely removed the
singletonforStringDType. SinceStringDTypeuses per-array descriptors, we're always going to need to create a new descriptor for each array anyway. We probably don't want an array to use a globally shared instance either. The tests pass with no other changes to the codebase besides deleting the code that creates the singleton, so I think it's not needed for anything either.Not sure if we're going to do another 2.2.x, but I think this is also safe to backport.