-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.6k
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
HIVE-28121. (2.3) Use direct SQL for transactional altering table parameter #5204
Conversation
@Override | ||
public long updateParameterWithExpectedValue(Table table, String key, String expectedValue, String newValue) | ||
throws MetaException, NoSuchObjectException { | ||
final Table _table = table; |
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 might be limitation of Java 7
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 is ok
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.
+1, thanks @pan3793 for taking care of this
@pvary Could you please take a look at this one? AFAIK it's the last one before the next RC for 2.3.10 |
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.
The backport seems ok.
I am a bit concerned about the failing tests, but if @sunchao says, that this is the current state of the tests on this branch, then we are ok to go
kindly ping @sunchao, are we good to go? |
Thanks @pan3793 @lirui-apache and @pvary . It looks like this PR has more tests failing than the previous PR: In the previous PR: #4892, there were only 27 tests failing (normally there would only be 26 tests but 1 was flaky in that PR). Could you double check whether the test failures are related? |
Yes that's unfortunately the current state of branch-2.3. We do know a fixed set of tests are failing though and are using that as the baseline for testing against PRs. |
@sunchao based on the CI results of this PR branch, I think the failure tests should be flaky cases |
OK, just re-triggered CI to confirm. |
Hmm @pan3793 I tried the tests again for 2 times, and each time there were over 40 tests failing, which is quite more than the normal 26. Could you double-check whether there is anything we should fix here? Thanks. |
oops, thanks @pan3793 - let me check the commits in branch-2.3 and see which commit caused the regression |
Merged, thanks |
@sunchao can we have the next RC for 2.3.10? |
Sorry for the delay @pan3793 . I just sent out RC1. |
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Port #5129 to branch-2.3
Why are the changes needed?
This is a follow-up of HIVE-26882, including correctness fixes for some RDBMS.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
Is the change a dependency upgrade?
No
How was this patch tested?
UT