Serialize: rework signature, part 3 #7867
Merged
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
This was referenced Jun 7, 2023
Deserialization signature to take PlanDeserializationState& instead of ClientContext&
carlopi
changed the title
|
Thanks! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is a (sort of draft) PR on top of serialization2, but then taking a separate turn in changing the
function_deserialize_tsignature to use PlanDeserializationState.It means encapsulating ClientContext instead of using it directly, and that's allow for ease of change of the codebase in the future AND allow implementing serializations for List lambda & co.
Note that currently
function_deserialize_tand friends (aggregates / table_functions) are assumed to have the same signature due to how templating insrc/include/duckdb/function/function_serialization.hppworks.I am looking for feedbacks, and not part of this PR (yet) is having more explicit that signature IS actually the same at C++ level.