[SPARK-52812][SQL] Make Spark Connect Catalog.createTable eager#56064
Closed
rishav23 wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
[SPARK-52812][SQL] Make Spark Connect Catalog.createTable eager#56064rishav23 wants to merge 1 commit into
rishav23 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
rishav23
force-pushed
the
fix-spark-52812-createtable-eager-v2
branch
from
741a54c to
37369e5
Compare
rishav23
force-pushed
the
fix-spark-52812-createtable-eager-v2
branch
from
37369e5 to
5645a6d
Compare
Contributor
|
Merging to master. Thanks! |
asf-gitbox-commits
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 26, 2026
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR makes Spark Connect Catalog.createTable eager. Previously, createTable() only constructed a lazy DataFrame, requiring users to explicitly trigger an action such as .collect() for the table creation to actually execute. This change eagerly executes the command internally while preserving the existing return type. A regression test has also been added to verify that tables are created immediately without requiring an explicit action. ### Why are the changes needed? Catalog.createTable() is a side-effecting operation and should execute eagerly to match expected Catalog API semantics. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes. Previously spark.catalog.createTable(....) did not immediately create the table in Spark Connect unless an action was triggered. Now the table is created eagerly. ### How was this patch tested? - Added a regression test in CatalogSuite - Ran build/sbt compile ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No Closes #56064 from rishav23/fix-spark-52812-createtable-eager-v2. Authored-by: rishav23 <sinharishav31@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Herman van Hövell <herman@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit 6dbe197) Signed-off-by: Herman van Hövell <herman@databricks.com>
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks for the review and quick turnaround! |
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
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?
This PR makes Spark Connect Catalog.createTable eager. Previously, createTable() only constructed a lazy DataFrame, requiring users to explicitly trigger an action such as .collect() for the table creation to actually execute. This change eagerly executes the command internally while preserving the existing return type. A regression test has also been added to verify that tables are created immediately without requiring an explicit action.
Why are the changes needed?
Catalog.createTable() is a side-effecting operation and should execute eagerly to match expected Catalog API semantics.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Yes. Previously spark.catalog.createTable(....) did not immediately create the table in Spark Connect unless an action was triggered. Now the table is created eagerly.
How was this patch tested?
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No