[Enhancement](udf) support volatility for udaf && udtf#63611
Open
linrrzqqq wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Contributor
|
Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris. Please clearly describe your PR:
|
Collaborator
Author
|
/review |
Collaborator
Author
|
run buildall |
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Automated review completed. I did not find blocking correctness issues in the changed UDAF/UDTF volatility paths.
Critical checkpoint conclusions:
- Goal/test coverage: The PR extends volatility parsing, SHOW/SHOW CREATE emission, and Nereids catalog-function conversion for Java/Python UDAF and UDTF. Added unit tests cover default UDAF volatility, explicit UDTF volatility, SHOW properties, SHOW CREATE SQL, and Nereids conversion preservation.
- Scope/focus: The implementation is small and localized to function creation, display, replay SQL, and UDF expression wrappers.
- Concurrency/lifecycle: No new shared mutable state, locks, threads, static initialization, or lifecycle-sensitive ownership were introduced.
- Config/compatibility: No new config items. Existing functions without persisted volatility still use Function.getVolatility() fallback to IMMUTABLE, and replay SQL now includes a property that CreateFunctionCommand accepts for Java/Python UDAF/UDTF.
- Parallel paths: Java/Python and UDAF/UDTF conversion paths appear updated consistently; RPC/non-Java/Python paths still reject volatility.
- Error handling: Invalid volatility continues through FunctionVolatility.fromString and is converted to AnalysisException.
- Transaction/persistence/data correctness: No transaction or storage visibility paths are touched.
- Performance/observability: No hot-path or observability concerns found for these metadata-only changes.
User focus: No additional user-provided review focus was supplied.
Contributor
TPC-H: Total hot run time: 31897 ms |
Contributor
TPC-DS: Total hot run time: 172942 ms |
Contributor
FE Regression Coverage ReportIncrement line coverage |
yujun777
reviewed
May 26, 2026
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
| public boolean isDeterministic() { | ||
| return volatility == FunctionVolatility.IMMUTABLE; |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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.
Related PR: #62698
Problem Summary:
Add volatility metadata support for UDAF and UDTF definitions, so user-defined aggregate and table functions can preserve and expose their volatility semantics consistently with UDFs.