[SPARK-48173][SQL] CheckAnalysis should see the entire query plan #46439
Conversation
This file contains 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
yaooqinn
approved these changes
May 7, 2024
cloud-fan
changed the title
|
Merged to master for Apache Spark 4.0.0-preview. Please make backporting PRs to the release branches, @cloud-fan . I believe we need to pass the CIs for this backporting. |
dongjoon-hyun
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 7, 2024
backport #46439 to 3.5 ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is a follow-up of #38029 . Some custom check rules need to see the entire query plan tree to get some context, but #38029 breaks it as it checks the query plan of dangling CTE relations recursively. This PR fixes it by putting back the dangling CTE relation in the main query plan and then check the main query plan. ### Why are the changes needed? Revert the breaking change to custom check rules ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No for most users. This restores the behavior of Spark 3.3 and earlier for custom check rules. ### How was this patch tested? existing tests. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes #46442 from cloud-fan/check2. Lead-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <cloud0fan@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
JacobZheng0927
pushed a commit
to JacobZheng0927/spark
that referenced
this pull request
May 11, 2024
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This is a follow-up of apache#38029 . Some custom check rules need to see the entire query plan tree to get some context, but apache#38029 breaks it as it checks the query plan of dangling CTE relations recursively. This PR fixes it by putting back the dangling CTE relation in the main query plan and then check the main query plan. ### Why are the changes needed? Revert the breaking change to custom check rules ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No for most users. This restores the behavior of Spark 3.3 and earlier for custom check rules. ### How was this patch tested? existing tests. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes apache#46439 from cloud-fan/check. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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 follow-up of #38029 . Some custom check rules need to see the entire query plan tree to get some context, but #38029 breaks it as it checks the query plan of dangling CTE relations recursively.
This PR fixes it by putting back the dangling CTE relation in the main query plan and then check the main query plan.
Why are the changes needed?
Revert the breaking change to custom check rules
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No for most users. This restores the behavior of Spark 3.3 and earlier for custom check rules.
How was this patch tested?
existing tests.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No