vbarua commented on PR #13772: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/13772#issuecomment-2623341026
Apologies for the delay, I haven't had the bandwidth to follow up on this (and I still don't tbh). At this point I'm ambivalent about this capability, but I wouldn't vote against it. Part of this is that I don't understand the use case sufficiently. To @ccciudatu's point: > the Substrait spec for extension tables is quite poorly defined, so to recreate the exact same plan (including names) on roundtrips we do require either small hacks or a more complex interface. However, this is not a hard requirement and the code accepts any compliant input. I can even remove this hack for now and wait/request for enhancements in the Substrait spec, if this is too ugly. I think that Substrait itself could use some improvements around this. I know there has been some discussion around improving [table function](https://github.com/substrait-io/substrait/issues/753) support in the core spec. My main concern with merging this would be around wanting/needing to make breaking changes in the future once the spec improves. But also we have done that in the past to improve the API so that shouldn't be a blocker. TLDR: No strong feelings for or against at this moment. -- 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
