-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.5k
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
Revert "[SPARK-23264][SQL] Make INTERVAL keyword optional when ANSI enabled" #27080
Conversation
@@ -87,8 +87,7 @@ Below is a list of all the keywords in Spark SQL. | |||
<tr><td>DATA</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td></tr> | |||
<tr><td>DATABASE</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td></tr> | |||
<tr><td>DATABASES</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td></tr> | |||
<tr><td>DAY</td><td>reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>reserved</td></tr> | |||
<tr><td>DAYS</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td></tr> |
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.
according to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-keywords-appendix.html , unit-S
is not keyword.
<tr><td>MICROSECOND</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td></tr> | ||
<tr><td>MICROSECONDS</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td></tr> | ||
<tr><td>MILLISECOND</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td></tr> | ||
<tr><td>MILLISECONDS</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td></tr> |
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.
according to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-keywords-appendix.html , they are not keyword.
@@ -293,12 +284,9 @@ Below is a list of all the keywords in Spark SQL. | |||
<tr><td>USING</td><td>reserved</td><td>strict-non-reserved</td><td>reserved</td></tr> | |||
<tr><td>VALUES</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>reserved</td></tr> | |||
<tr><td>VIEW</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td></tr> | |||
<tr><td>WEEK</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td><td>non-reserved</td></tr> |
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.
according to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-keywords-appendix.html , this is not keyword.
Test build #116048 has finished for PR 27080 at commit
|
Test build #116050 has finished for PR 27080 at commit
|
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.
Looks ok to me if the tests passed.
--IMPORT interval.sql |
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.
Still need this test file?
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.
yea, the overflow behavior is different.
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.
In general, we should have a comment to explain why we need this file.
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.
Looks fine if tests pass
LGTM |
Test build #116064 has finished for PR 27080 at commit
|
Test build #116077 has finished for PR 27080 at commit
|
retest this please |
Test build #116083 has finished for PR 27080 at commit
|
Test build #116095 has finished for PR 27080 at commit
|
Thanks! Merged to master. |
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Revert #20433 .
Why are the changes needed?
According to the SQL standard, the INTERVAL prefix is required:
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
yes, but omitting the INTERVAL prefix is a new feature in 3.0
How was this patch tested?
existing tests