alamb commented on code in PR #15159:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/15159#discussion_r1999670066
##########
datafusion/sql/tests/cases/plan_to_sql.rs:
##########
Review Comment:
I don't understand this comment -- doesn't this PR *add* a new test?
##########
datafusion/sql/src/unparser/plan.rs:
##########
@@ -377,8 +377,23 @@ impl Unparser<'_> {
};
if self.dialect.unnest_as_table_factor() &&
unnest_input_type.is_some() {
if let LogicalPlan::Unnest(unnest) = &p.input.as_ref() {
- return self
- .unnest_to_table_factor_sql(unnest, query, select,
relation);
+ if let LogicalPlan::Projection(projection) =
unnest.input.as_ref()
Review Comment:
This feels like something that is a limitation of
`unnest_to_table_factor_sql` -- would it make sense to put the check in there
so the check and the code with the assumption are in the same place?
--
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
