-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 144
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
introduce a new function signature ScalarFuncSig_TimeIsNullOnNotNullCol
#121
Conversation
src/protobuf/select.rs
Outdated
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ | |||
// This file is generated by rust-protobuf 2.5.0. Do not edit | |||
// This file is generated by rust-protobuf 2.6.1. Do not edit |
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.
@breeswish Can TiKV use the rust code generated by rust-protobuf 2.6.1
?
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 that cargo
upgrades the rust-protobuf
dependency automatically.
It should be OK and here is another example 535e1ab#diff-9ab65b665f1b3a0f209eddc266d5a70eL1 .
@breeswish Please help to confirm it.
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.
Why is there 5000+ lines of difference 🤔
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 that the rust code format changed...
The Format of this PR is different from the previous PR.
The previous PR changed the format with 8000+ lines of difference, and this PR changes the format back, so there are so many lines of difference.
So which one is better... @breeswish
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.
@BusyJay PTAL, it is ok with this change? ( I mean 2.5.0 and 2.6.1 )
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.
@BusyJay Should we commit locks?
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 generated rust code again with the previous PR's protobuf version(2.5.0).
PTAL @BusyJay
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.
@breeswish No, we don't. Better lock it inside Cargo.toml
.
@qw4990 Have you tested it with TiKV? I'm not sure whether it breaks anything if the version doesn't match.
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 tried to do some tests, but there are some things (about protoc
version and prost
) wrong in TiKV to let it can't upgrade tipb
(tikv/tikv#4864), and TiKV has hard-written a specific version of tipb
now... @BusyJay
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.
Since TiKV locks tipb
to a specific version, I prefer to merge this PR first to let TiDB(pingcap/tidb#10753) can use this new function and then solve problems in TiKV later.
Wait for pingcap/tidb#10790 and use it to solve this problem instead of introducing a new function signature. |
Introduce a new function signature
ScalarFuncSig_TimeIsNullOnNotNullCol
to solve this MySQL-compatibility problem(pingcap/tidb#9763);