[SPARK-46043][SQL][FOLLOWUP] Remove the catalog and identifier check in DataSourceV2Relation #44348
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
allisonwang-db
force-pushed
the
spark-46043-followup
branch
from
1b4addf to
50ccd32
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
cc @cloud-fan |
cloud-fan
approved these changes
Dec 14, 2023
Contributor
|
thanks, merging to master! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
#43949 added a check in the
namemethod ofDataSourceV2Relation, which can be overly strict. This PR removes the check and revert to usetable.name()when either catalog or identifier is empty.Why are the changes needed?
To reduce the chance of having breaking changes.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Existing unit tests.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No