[SPARK-39203][SQL][FOLLOWUP] Do not qualify view location #38321
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
Contributor
Author
|
cc @wangyum |
wangyum
approved these changes
Oct 20, 2022
MaxGekk
approved these changes
Oct 20, 2022
Member
|
Merged to master. Thank you, @cloud-fan , @wangyum , @MaxGekk . |
SandishKumarHN
pushed a commit
to SandishKumarHN/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2022
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This fixes a corner-case regression caused by apache#36625. Users may have existing views that have invalid locations due to historical reasons. The location is actually useless for a view, but after apache#36625 , they start to fail to read the view as qualifying the location fails. We should just skip qualifying view locations. ### Why are the changes needed? avoid regression ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Spark can read view with invalid location again. ### How was this patch tested? manually test. View with an invalid location is kind of "broken" and can't be dropped (HMS fails to drop it), so we can't write a UT for it. Closes apache#38321 from cloud-fan/follow. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <[email protected]>
HyukjinKwon
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 21, 2023
…d on database URI ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This reverts #36625 and its followup #38321 . ### Why are the changes needed? External table location can be arbitrary and has no connection with the database location. It can be wrong to qualify the external table location based on the database location. If a table written by old Spark versions does not have a qualified location, there is no way to restore it as the information is already lost. People can manually fix the table locations assuming they are under the same HDFS cluster with the database location, by themselves. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes #40871 from cloud-fan/minor. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
HyukjinKwon
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 21, 2023
…d on database URI ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This reverts #36625 and its followup #38321 . ### Why are the changes needed? External table location can be arbitrary and has no connection with the database location. It can be wrong to qualify the external table location based on the database location. If a table written by old Spark versions does not have a qualified location, there is no way to restore it as the information is already lost. People can manually fix the table locations assuming they are under the same HDFS cluster with the database location, by themselves. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes #40871 from cloud-fan/minor. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit afd9e2c) Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
snmvaughan
pushed a commit
to snmvaughan/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2023
…d on database URI ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This reverts apache#36625 and its followup apache#38321 . ### Why are the changes needed? External table location can be arbitrary and has no connection with the database location. It can be wrong to qualify the external table location based on the database location. If a table written by old Spark versions does not have a qualified location, there is no way to restore it as the information is already lost. People can manually fix the table locations assuming they are under the same HDFS cluster with the database location, by themselves. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes apache#40871 from cloud-fan/minor. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit afd9e2c) Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
GladwinLee
pushed a commit
to lyft/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 10, 2023
…d on database URI ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This reverts apache#36625 and its followup apache#38321 . ### Why are the changes needed? External table location can be arbitrary and has no connection with the database location. It can be wrong to qualify the external table location based on the database location. If a table written by old Spark versions does not have a qualified location, there is no way to restore it as the information is already lost. People can manually fix the table locations assuming they are under the same HDFS cluster with the database location, by themselves. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes apache#40871 from cloud-fan/minor. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit afd9e2c) Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
catalinii
pushed a commit
to lyft/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 10, 2023
…d on database URI ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This reverts apache#36625 and its followup apache#38321 . ### Why are the changes needed? External table location can be arbitrary and has no connection with the database location. It can be wrong to qualify the external table location based on the database location. If a table written by old Spark versions does not have a qualified location, there is no way to restore it as the information is already lost. People can manually fix the table locations assuming they are under the same HDFS cluster with the database location, by themselves. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes apache#40871 from cloud-fan/minor. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit afd9e2c) Signed-off-by: Hyukjin Kwon <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 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 fixes a corner-case regression caused by #36625. Users may have existing views that have invalid locations due to historical reasons. The location is actually useless for a view, but after #36625 , they start to fail to read the view as qualifying the location fails. We should just skip qualifying view locations.
Why are the changes needed?
avoid regression
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Spark can read view with invalid location again.
How was this patch tested?
manually test. View with an invalid location is kind of "broken" and can't be dropped (HMS fails to drop it), so we can't write a UT for it.