Support parsing MySQL stored procedure syntax - part 3 #35503
Conversation
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
|
The conflict has been resolved. Could you review my PR？Thank you！ |
|
Hi @theNorthWindBlow, can you modify the commit info to english? |
…esto Iceberg Connector (apache#35504)
- Extract DatabaseType instance as a private field to improve performance - Update SQLParserEngine initialization to use the pre-loaded DatabaseType - Modify SQLBindEngine invocation to include DatabaseType as a parameter
* Optimize MySQL multi-statements handling - Extract DatabaseType instance as a private field to improve performance - Update SQLParserEngine initialization to use the pre-loaded DatabaseType - Modify SQLBindEngine invocation to include DatabaseType as a parameter * Add database type parameter to SQLBindEngine.bind method - Update the SQLBindEngine.bind method call to include the databaseType parameter - This change ensures that the database type is properly passed during SQL statement binding
…rser engine creation (apache#35512)
…for SQL statement binding (apache#35513)
* Refactor PostgreSQLComDescribeExecutor to use ShardingSphereMetaData for SQL statement binding * Fix PostgreSQLComDescribeExecutorTest
…ently (apache#35517) * Refactor PostgreSQLBatchedStatementsExecutor to use database type consistently * Refactor MySQLComFieldListPacketExecutor to use database type consistently * Refactor MySQLComFieldListPacketExecutor to use database type consistently
…rePreparedStatement and ShardingSphereStatement (apache#35520)
- Update SQLBindEngine.bind method signature to include DatabaseType parameter - Modify test cases in various modules to pass DatabaseType to the bind method - This change enables more precise handling of database-specific SQL statements
theNorthWindBlow
force-pushed
the
issue35087
branch
from
fa8209d to
9c79050
Compare
I revised the commit information again, but I found that there were many more commit information of others. I'm not quite sure if this meets the requirements. Could you please take a look when you have time? If there is any impact, I can submit a new PR. |
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.
Fixes #35087.
Changes proposed in this pull request:
Before committing this PR, I'm sure that I have checked the following options:
./mvnw clean install -B -T1C -Dmaven.javadoc.skip -Dmaven.jacoco.skip -e.