Skip to content
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

Fix multiIf in information_schema.tables #815

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 11, 2024

Conversation

jovezhong
Copy link
Contributor

I am working a seatunnel sink and it will check information_schema.tables

SELECT TABLE_NAME FROM information_schema.tables 
WHERE TABLE_CATALOG = 'internal' AND TABLE_SCHEMA = ? AND TABLE_NAME = ? 
ORDER BY TABLE_NAME

I hit error "Caused by: java.sql.BatchUpdateException: Code: 46. DB::Exception: Unknown function multiIf. Maybe you meant: ['multi_if','multiply']. (UNKNOWN_FUNCTION) (version 1.5.15)"

I guess there is an issue for the view definition.
image

PR checklist:

  • Did you run ClangFormat ?
  • Did you separate headers to a different section in existing community code base ?
  • Did you surround proton: starts/ends for new code in existing community code base ?

Please write user-readable short description of the changes:

I am working a seatunnel sink and it will check information_schema.tables
            "SELECT TABLE_NAME FROM information_schema.tables "
                    + "WHERE TABLE_CATALOG = 'internal' AND TABLE_SCHEMA = ? AND TABLE_NAME = ? "
                    + "ORDER BY TABLE_NAME";

I hit error "Caused by: java.sql.BatchUpdateException: Code: 46. DB::Exception: Unknown function multiIf. Maybe you meant: ['multi_if','multiply']. (UNKNOWN_FUNCTION) (version 1.5.15)"

I guess there is an issue for the view definition.
@yl-lisen yl-lisen merged commit 273900f into develop Aug 11, 2024
21 checks passed
@yl-lisen yl-lisen deleted the bugfix/information_schema branch August 11, 2024 05:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants