[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3382?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16943189#comment-16943189
]
Julian Hyde commented on CALCITE-3382:
--------------------------------------
Reviewing your PR, I think there needs to be more acknowledgement in the code
of the difficulty of having TUMBLE as a group by function and also as a
user-defined table function. Future developers may not be aware of the design
discussion we've had over the last weeks. And also acknowledge the fact that we
intend obsolete it at some point. I would name it "$TUMBLE", to emphasize the
fact that it is not intended to be resolved by name (there are several other
functions with "$" in their name).
Is it worth dealing with HOP at the same time?
> Rename current TUMBLE to "TUMBLE_OLD" and add TUMBLE to Parser
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-3382
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-3382
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Rui Wang
> Assignee: Rui Wang
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Time Spent: 40m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Per discussion in https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1457, we should add
> TUMBLE to parser and rename it to "TUMBLE_OLD".
> "TUMBLE" as an operator name will be left for table-value function TUMBLE.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
