Just for the record, I'll stick to the date we documented at
https://spark.apache.org/versioning-policy.html
Should be best to stick to what we wrote there given they we delayed once
already.
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020, 02:28 Xiao Li, wrote:
> Thank you, Ryan!
>
> Xiao
>
> Dongjoon Hyun 于2020年11月20日
Hi,
Stream-stream join in spark structured streaming right now supports INNER,
LEFT OUTER, RIGHT OUTER and LEFT SEMI join type. But it does not support
FULL OUTER join and we are working on to add it in
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/30395 .
Given LEFT OUTER and RIGHT OUTER stream-stream
Thank you, Ryan!
Xiao
Dongjoon Hyun 于2020年11月20日周五 上午9:20写道：
> It sounds great! :)
>
> Thanks, Ryan.
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:19 AM Ryan Blue wrote:
>
>> I think we should be able to get the CREATE TABLE changes in. Now that
>> the main blocker (EXTERNAL) has been decided, it's just a mat
It sounds great! :)
Thanks, Ryan.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:19 AM Ryan Blue wrote:
> I think we should be able to get the CREATE TABLE changes in. Now that the
> main blocker (EXTERNAL) has been decided, it's just a matter of normal
> review comments.
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:05 AM Dongjoo
I think we should be able to get the CREATE TABLE changes in. Now that the
main blocker (EXTERNAL) has been decided, it's just a matter of normal
review comments.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:05 AM Dongjoon Hyun
wrote:
> Thank you for sharing, Xiao.
>
> I hope we are able to make some agreement for
Thank you for sharing, Xiao.
I hope we are able to make some agreement for CREATE TABLE DDLs, too.
Bests,
Dongjoon.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:01 AM Xiao Li wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/28026 is the major feature I am
> tracking. It is painful to keep two sets of CREATE TABLE D
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/28026 is the major feature I am
tracking. It is painful to keep two sets of CREATE TABLE DDLs with
different behaviors. This hurts the usability of our SQL users, based on
what I heard. Unfortunately, this PR missed Spark 3.0 release. Now, I think
we should try
Hi, Dongjoon,
Thank you for your feedback. I think *Early December* does not mean we will
cut the branch on Dec 1st. I do not think Dec 1st and Dec 4th are a big
deal. Normally, it would be nice to give enough buffer. Based on my
understanding, this email is just a *proposal* and a *reminder*. In
Hi, Xiao.
I agree.
> Merging the feature work after the branch cut should not be
encouraged in general, although some committers did make some exceptions
based on their own judgement. We should try to avoid merging the feature
work after the branch cut.
So, the Apache Spark community accepte
