-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
feat: new concatenation operator for working with arrays #6615
Conversation
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.
I am a huge fan of adding functionality with net negative code! Nice work @izveigor
I had some testing suggestions, but otherwise this looks good to me. 🚀
@@ -204,3 +204,21 @@ query II rowsort | |||
select array_ndims(array_fill(1, [1, 2, 3])), array_ndims([[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[1]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]); | |||
---- | |||
3 21 | |||
|
|||
# array concatenate operator #1 (like array_concat scalar function) |
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.
I recommend adding a test for `null handling in these arrays
like
select make_array(1, 2, 3) || make_array(4, null, 6);
and
select make_array(1, 2, 3) || null;
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.
I think this feature will only be available after issue #6556 is resolved.
@alamb, what do you think about this PR? |
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.
I think this looks great -- thank you @izveigor
I took the liberty of merging this PR up from main to resolve a conflict and I'll plan to merge the PR when tests pass
🤔 that is not good:
I restarted the test |
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #6603
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Yes
Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes