Thanks a lots it’s a great improvement. I’ll check what’s the current
behavior that we have on flink with respect to error handling !

On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 3:46 PM Anurag Mantripragada
<amantriprag...@apple.com.invalid> wrote:

> This is great. +1 from me. Thanks Huaxin.
>
>
> Anurag Mantripragada
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2024, at 12:39 PM, Prashant Singh <prashant010...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> +1, Thanks, Huaxin !
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:41 AM John Zhuge <jzh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 Thanks
>>
>> John Zhuge
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on the direction. It's great that Spark has standardized the error
>>> code so that Iceberg didn't have to rely on error messages.
>>>
>>> Yufei
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 8:47 AM rdb...@gmail.com <rdb...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This looks like a good improvement to me. Thanks, Huaxin!
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 11:37 PM huaxin gao <huaxin.ga...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> While working on integrating Spark 4.0 with Iceberg, I noticed that
>>>>> error conditions in the Spark module are primarily validated through the
>>>>> content of error messages. I need to revise some of the validation because
>>>>> the error messages have changed in Spark 4.0. Spark has standardized error
>>>>> handling by introducing error classes and SQLSTATE codes since 3.1. I 
>>>>> would
>>>>> like to align the error handling in the Iceberg Spark module with Spark's
>>>>> standard error handling framework, specifically by shifting from 
>>>>> validating
>>>>> error message content to validating error classes and SQLSTATE codes.  I
>>>>> have prepared a quick write-up
>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11qHUiCcKMJ-xAyfL__Yv7B1b5N-80-GIwE8AV96A2Ac/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>> for background information and an example. Please let me know what you
>>>>> think. If there are no objections to this proposal, I will begin updating
>>>>> the error handling in the Spark module.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Huaxin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>

Reply via email to