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

[SPARK-31405][SQL][3.0] Fail by default when reading/writing legacy datetime values from/to Parquet/Avro files #28539

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

When reading/writing datetime values that before the rebase switch day, from/to Avro/Parquet files, fail by default and ask users to set a config to explicitly do rebase or not.

Why are the changes needed?

Rebase or not rebase have different behaviors and we should let users decide it explicitly. In most cases, users won't hit this exception as it only affects ancient datetime values.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

Yes, now users will see an error when reading/writing dates before 1582-10-15 or timestamps before 1900-01-01 from/to Parquet/Avro files, with an error message to ask setting a config.

How was this patch tested?

updated tests

…me values from/to Parquet/Avro files

When reading/writing datetime values that before the rebase switch day, from/to Avro/Parquet files, fail by default and ask users to set a config to explicitly do rebase or not.

Rebase or not rebase have different behaviors and we should let users decide it explicitly. In most cases, users won't hit this exception as it only affects ancient datetime values.

Yes, now users will see an error when reading/writing dates before 1582-10-15 or timestamps before 1900-01-01 from/to Parquet/Avro files, with an error message to ask setting a config.

updated tests

Closes apache#28477 from cloud-fan/rebase.

Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <gurwls223@apache.org>
@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member Author

HyukjinKwon commented May 15, 2020

This PR is a quick workaround to run a job in another Jenkins node for #28526. See also SPARK-31693

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented May 15, 2020

Test build #122663 has finished for PR 28539 at commit 9f14144.

  • This patch fails build dependency tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds the following public classes (experimental):
  • class AvroDeserializer(

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member Author

retest this please

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented May 15, 2020

Test build #122665 has finished for PR 28539 at commit 9f14144.

  • This patch fails build dependency tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds the following public classes (experimental):
  • class AvroDeserializer(

@gatorsmile
Copy link
Member

retest this please

1 similar comment
@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member Author

retest this please

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented May 16, 2020

Test build #122704 has finished for PR 28539 at commit 9f14144.

  • This patch fails build dependency tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds the following public classes (experimental):
  • class AvroDeserializer(

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

amp-jenkins-worker-05 seems to have the problem still. :(

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member Author

retest this please

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented May 16, 2020

Test build #122719 has finished for PR 28539 at commit 9f14144.

  • This patch fails due to an unknown error code, -9.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds the following public classes (experimental):
  • class AvroDeserializer(

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member Author

retest this please

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented May 16, 2020

Test build #122723 has finished for PR 28539 at commit 9f14144.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds the following public classes (experimental):
  • class AvroDeserializer(

@HyukjinKwon HyukjinKwon deleted the SPARK-31405 branch July 27, 2020 07:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants