[SPARK-35798][SQL] Fix SparkPlan.sqlContext usage #32947
Closed
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 @cloud-fan |
|
Kubernetes integration test starting |
|
Kubernetes integration test status success |
cloud-fan
approved these changes
Jun 17, 2021
Contributor
|
thanks for the cleanup! merging to master |
|
Test build #139919 has finished for PR 32947 at commit
|
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks for the review. |
Member
|
Nice! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
There might be
SparkPlannodes where canonicalization on executor side can cause issues. This is a follow-up fix to conversation https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/32885/files#r651019687.Why are the changes needed?
To avoid potential NPEs when canonicalization happens on executors.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Existing UTs.