Julian, I have deferred those three issues to next release since they are not blockers and I could not work on them.
Once Nishant has addressed your comments in CALCITE-1683, I will merge his PR. Thanks, Jesús On 3/14/17, 1:13 PM, "Remus Rusanu" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello Julian, > >I added an extra check and prevent constant reduction in the HiveExecutor for >TIMESTAMPs that have precision higher than 3. Not based on type, since Hive >has always TIMESTAMP(9), but on actual values that contain non-zero >sub-millisecond nanos. This almost works, the problem is that the expression >still gets reduced at a later stage: > > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexBuilder.makeLiteral(RexBuilder.java:1239) > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexBuilder.makeLiteral(RexBuilder.java:1236) > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexExecutable.reduce(RexExecutable.java:86) > at > org.apache.calcite.rex.RexExecutorImpl.reduce(RexExecutorImpl.java:128) > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexUtil.simplifyCast(RexUtil.java:2450) > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexUtil.simplify(RexUtil.java:1633) > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexUtil.simplify(RexUtil.java:1587) > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexUtil.simplifyList(RexUtil.java:1747) > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexUtil.simplifyComparison(RexUtil.java:1658) > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexUtil.simplify(RexUtil.java:1648) > at > org.apache.calcite.rex.RexUtil$ExprSimplifier.visitCall(RexUtil.java:3051) > at > org.apache.calcite.rex.RexUtil$ExprSimplifier.visitCall(RexUtil.java:3016) > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexCall.accept(RexCall.java:104) > at org.apache.calcite.rex.RexShuttle.apply(RexShuttle.java:279) > >Here the issue is that the custom HiveExecutor gets lost on the stack and the >default EXECUTOR is used instead, resulting in incorrect behavior. I created >CALCITE-1695 Not all RexUtil.simplifyXxx code paths carry the provided >executor. This new CALCITE-1695 issue is fairly trivial to fix. I know Julian >talked about making the executor a property of the RexBuilder and that would >be better long term, but right now I tried just extending the signature of >simplifyComparison/SimplifyList to accept and pass on a RexExecutor and this >seems to solve the issues I was seeing in Hive. > >Thanks, >~Remus > > >On 3/13/17, 4:32 PM, "Julian Hyde" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1690 is a big one. For now, can you just disable constant reduction for > timestamp literals that have high precision? > > > On Mar 13, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Remus Rusanu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > CALCITE-1681 is not needed anymore > > The only pending issue for Hive is CALCITE-1690: Calcite timestamp > literals cannot express precision above millisecond. > > > > Thanks, > > ~Remus > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Julian Hyde <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:23 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Towards Calcite release 1.12 > > > > OK, what’s left before RC0? > > > > I am working on committing 1561, 1684, 1691, 1688. Also, I will review > 1566 shortly. I may also get to 1689. > > > > Remus, Are all of your Hive issues resolved? In particular do you need > 1681? > > > > Jesus, Where are you with 1421, 1456, 1413? Can you also commit > Nishant’s 1683 since you +1’d it? > > > > Julian > > > > > >> On Mar 8, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> We have that dependency already, albeit transitively: CALCITE-1681 > blocks HIVE-15708, which is depended upon by CALCITE-1657 “Release Calcite > 1.12.0”. > >> > >>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Remus Rusanu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Looks like CALCITE-1681 ‘Provide a way to copy RelNode trees between > clusters’ is also needed. I hope I’ll have it ready this week. > >>> > >>> On 3/8/17, 10:49 AM, "Julian Hyde" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Same comments as for CALCITE-1615. The list contains commits up to > 2/24. I will fix before the release. > >>> > >>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 10:43 AM, Eli Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1598 (Pig adapter) does > not > >>>> seem to be on the list. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Eli > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Commit 49888a6c581f6243a5b3f1a48ea2c9edd6aac9d5, which fixed > >>>>> CALCITE-1615, had not made it to https://github.com/julianhyde/ > >>>>> calcite/tree/branch-1.12 <https://github.com/julianhyde/calcite/tree/ > >>>>> branch-1.12> at the time I wrote that draft of the release notes. > There > >>>>> are about a dozen other cases fixed since then. I’ll be sure to > include it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Julian > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Haohui Mai <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Julian, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think CALCITE-1615 is not on the list. Can you please double > check? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haohui > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:49 AM Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> First draft of release notes: > >>>>>>> https://github.com/julianhyde/calcite/blob/branch-1.12/site/ > >>>>> _docs/history.md > >>>>>>> < > >>>>>>> https://github.com/julianhyde/calcite/blob/branch-1.12/site/ > >>>>> _docs/history.md> > >>>>>>> (contains commits up to 12 days ago). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks. That last change should be fairly low-risk, so we should > be > >>>>> able > >>>>>>> to move to an RC and vote soon afterwards. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Committers, Let’s try to stabilize. I propose we get any “risky” > >>>>> changes > >>>>>>> in by the end of the weekend. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> By the way, I volunteer to be release manager. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Julian > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Remus Rusanu > <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We have only one issue left to resolve, the materialized views > RelNode > >>>>>>> cloning into a new planner. I expect to have a resolution by end > of this > >>>>>>> week, so the all-done ETA from me would be mid-next week, let say > March > >>>>> 15. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>> ~Remus > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 3/7/17, 5:08 PM, "Julian Hyde" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Remus, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do you have an ETA for HIVE-15708? Just a guess is fine, but it > helps > >>>>>>> the rest of us know when this release is likely to drop. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Julian > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Remus Rusanu < > >>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Put on hold, for how long? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Until someone chimed in with their time constraints, as you > just did. > >>>>>>> :) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We make decisions on-list, but for that we need people to > provide > >>>>>>>>>> information on-list. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [We] did not yet have a 100% successful run for HIVE-15708, > >>>>>>>>>>> but we're close and once we have the changes ready, we > >>>>>>>>>>> cannot do the move unless Calcite does the release. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> What's your best guess for when HIVE-15708 will be fixed? We > will > >>>>>>>>>> start the RC vote after that. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Julian > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
