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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
ScalarUDF with zero arguments should be provided with one null array as parameter #9031
ScalarUDF with zero arguments should be provided with one null array as parameter #9031
Changes from 4 commits
3c1f832
aeb91b2
751cd48
e4f3638
eaf4c11
fbd376e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
it doesn't hurt but I wonder if the example table needs 4 columns 🤔
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.
I just copied the reported test case. I think we can reduce the columns.
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.
Reduced to one column.
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.
Can could the random implementation ever actually make 1.0 (the range is
0..1.0
). Maybe we could start at -1.0 or something just to be sure this won't ever flakeThere 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.
I think the range
0..1.0
is exclusive on the end point?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.
But
-1.0
is also good.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.
If so that this is fine!
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.
Changed to
-1.0
to make it more clear.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.
It seems like only one field is ever read. I wonder if it would be better to copy just this field rather than the entire signature (which is both larger with several allocations, but also might be misleading that this signature information was used somehow more in execution plans.
I worry that the signature information might start being referred to in physical planning
So perhaps something like
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.
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.
The existing test is not correct at all.
acos
built-in scalar function's return type should beFloat64
.Previously the roundtrip test passes because
from_proto
simply takes serde return type and uses it as parameter toScalarFunctionExpr
.But in this PR,
from_proto
callscreate_physical_expr
which gets return type directly fromBuiltinScalarFunction
. So with the PR, this test issue is found.