[SPARK-35363][SQL][FOLLOWUP] Use fresh name for findNextJoinRows instead of hardcoding it #32548
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
Author
|
cc @cloud-fan, thanks. |
cloud-fan
approved these changes
May 14, 2021
|
Kubernetes integration test starting |
|
Kubernetes integration test status failure |
Contributor
Author
|
The failed test seems not relevant here, restarted test - https://github.com/c21/spark/actions/runs/841165886 . |
|
Test build #138546 has finished for PR 32548 at commit
|
dongjoon-hyun
approved these changes
May 16, 2021
Member
dongjoon-hyun
left a comment
dongjoon-hyun
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, LGTM. Merged to master. Thank you, @c21 and @cloud-fan .
Contributor
Author
|
Thank you @dongjoon-hyun and @cloud-fan for review! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This is a followup from discussion in #32495 (comment) . The hardcoded function name
findNextJoinRowsis not a real problem now as we always do code generation for SMJ's children separately. But this change is to make it future proof in case this assumption changed in the future.Why are the changes needed?
Fix the potential reliability issue.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Existing unit tests.