wiedld commented on code in PR #13986:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/13986#discussion_r1914282403
##########
datafusion/physical-plan/src/execution_plan.rs:
##########
@@ -110,6 +110,16 @@ pub trait ExecutionPlan: Debug + DisplayAs + Send + Sync {
/// trait, which is implemented for all `ExecutionPlan`s.
fn properties(&self) -> &PlanProperties;
+ /// Returns an error if this individual node does not conform to its
invariants.
Review Comment:
It felts like we had "executableness" defined in two ways: (1) general plan
validity which is already encoded in the SanityPlanCheck, and (2) any per
ExecutionPlan node invariants. For the latter case (the function signature
above) we could define an InvariantLevel.
Given that the scope of this PR has shifting a bit to [implementing this
approach](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/13986#discussion_r1914279888)
, @alamb are you still thinking that the InvariantLevels make sense for the
execution plan nodes?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: github-h...@datafusion.apache.org
