-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Spark: 4.0 snapshot support #11583
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Spark: 4.0 snapshot support #11583
Conversation
import org.apache.spark.sql.catalyst.util.truncatedString | ||
import org.apache.spark.sql.connector.iceberg.catalog.Procedure | ||
|
||
case class IcebergCall(procedure: Procedure, args: Seq[Expression]) extends LeafCommand { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Spark 4 already supports CALL
syntax, and also brings the Call
logical/physics plan node, instead of renaming it to IcebergCall
, why not migrate the Iceberg procedures to the upstream procedure API?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR is already very big. I want to make minimal changes to ensure that the current stored procedure continues to function, which is why I've renamed this to IcebergCall to avoid conflicts with Spark's CALL syntax. I think it probably better to migrate the Iceberg procedures in a follow-up PR.
#11257 is no longer valid? |
@manuzhang The old PR has some conflicting files. If I rebase, it will also pick up changes for Spark 3.5, which I don't want. So, I opened a new PR. |
No description provided.