Skip to content

Conversation

@BryanCutler
Copy link
Member

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This is a followup to #19575 which added a section on setting max Arrow record batches and this will externalize the conf that was referenced in the docs.

How was this patch tested?

NA

@BryanCutler
Copy link
Member Author

cc @gatorsmile

@gatorsmile
Copy link
Member

Thanks for submitting this follow-up PR. Originally, I planned to do it with the other renaming work.

@BryanCutler
Copy link
Member Author

Oh, this conf isn't used for any of the group UDFs, but if you prefer to combine it there, I will close this

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jan 29, 2018

Test build #86776 has finished for PR 20423 at commit 8408b45.

  • This patch fails Spark unit tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@BryanCutler
Copy link
Member Author

retest this please

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jan 30, 2018

Test build #86781 has finished for PR 20423 at commit 8408b45.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@gatorsmile
Copy link
Member

LGTM

Thanks! Merged to master/2.3

asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2018
…xRecordsPerBatch

## What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This is a followup to #19575 which added a section on setting max Arrow record batches and this will externalize the conf that was referenced in the docs.

## How was this patch tested?
NA

Author: Bryan Cutler <[email protected]>

Closes #20423 from BryanCutler/arrow-user-doc-externalize-maxRecordsPerBatch-SPARK-22221.

(cherry picked from commit f235df6)
Signed-off-by: gatorsmile <[email protected]>
@asfgit asfgit closed this in f235df6 Jan 30, 2018
@BryanCutler BryanCutler deleted the arrow-user-doc-externalize-maxRecordsPerBatch-SPARK-22221 branch March 6, 2018 23:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants