unsubscribe

Clarification on Spark code comments

Hi I am new to the community so pardon me if my question is framed incorrectly. I was going through the Spark code base on GitHub and am confused with comment mentioned. In file https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/rdd/util/PeriodicRDDCheckpointer.sca

Re: [DISCUSS] Resolve ambiguous parser rule between two "create table"s

Never mind, forget about the dead code. Turned out that reverting "via manual" can be very easily done - remove config and apply to the tests -> remove field -> remove the changes into docs. It was considered as non-trivial because we only consider about "git revert" but there's no strict rule to d

Re: [DISCUSS] Resolve ambiguous parser rule between two "create table"s

I think that the dead code approach, while a bit unpalatable and worse than reverting, is probably better than leaving the parameter (even if it is hidden) On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:46 PM Ryan Blue wrote: > +1 for the approach Jungtaek suggests. That will avoid needing to support > behavior tha

Re: [DISCUSS] Resolve ambiguous parser rule between two "create table"s

+1 for the approach Jungtaek suggests. That will avoid needing to support behavior that is not well understood with minimal changes. On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:45 AM Jungtaek Lim wrote: > Before I forget, we'd better not forget to change the doc, as create table > doc looks to represent current s

[Datasource V2] Exception Handling for Catalogs - Naming Suggestions

Currently the way some actions work, we receive an error during analysis phase. For example, doing a "SELECT * FROM non_existent_table" will return an analysis exception as the NoSuchTableException is captured and replaced. Other actions like the "ShowNamespaceExec" call catalog methods directly a

Re: [VOTE] Release Spark 2.4.6 (RC1)

Hi Holden, I am +1 on this release, the fix for SPARK-31663 can make it to next release as well. Thanks, On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:09 PM Holden Karau wrote: > Thanks. The 2.4.6 RC1 vote fails because we don’t have enough binding +1s, > I’ll start a new RC once 31663 is merged or next week whic

Re: [VOTE] Release Spark 2.4.6 (RC1)

Thanks. The 2.4.6 RC1 vote fails because we don’t have enough binding +1s, I’ll start a new RC once 31663 is merged or next week whichever is first. On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:28 AM Yuanjian Li wrote: > Thanks Holden and Dongjoon for the help! > The bugfix for SPARK-31663 is ready for review, hop

Re: [VOTE] Release Spark 2.4.6 (RC1)

Thanks Holden and Dongjoon for the help! The bugfix for SPARK-31663 is ready for review, hope it can be picked up in 2.4.7 if possible. https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/28501 Best, Yuanjian Takeshi Yamamuro 于2020年5月11日周一 上午9:03写道： > I checked on my MacOS env; all the tests > with `-Pyarn -P

unsubscribe

Thank you, Kiran,

Re: [DISCUSS] Resolve ambiguous parser rule between two "create table"s

Before I forget, we'd better not forget to change the doc, as create table doc looks to represent current syntax which will be incorrect later. On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:32 PM Jungtaek Lim wrote: > It's not only for end users, but also for us. Spark itself uses the config > "true" and "false" in

Re: [DISCUSS] Resolve ambiguous parser rule between two "create table"s

It's not only for end users, but also for us. Spark itself uses the config "true" and "false" in tests and it still brings confusion. We still have to deal with both situations. I'm wondering how long days it would be needed to revert it cleanly, but if we worry about the amount of code change jus