Use consistent version of string_to_timestamp_nanos in DataFusion #767
Conversation
This file contains 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
Dandandan
approved these changes
Jul 22, 2021
What would you think about simply deleting the copy in datafusion (and always using the one in arrow) ? That is probably the best test :) |
alamb
force-pushed
the
alamb/unified_timestamps
branch
from
ead2ce3 to
aba03df
Compare
|
@Dandandan I pushed a commit to remove the copy of cc @velvia |
Dandandan
approved these changes
Jul 24, 2021
|
Nice cleanup 👍 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Resolves #766.
Rationale for this change
Constant folding was using a different implementation than if the function was evaluated
What changes are included in this PR?
Use same function
Are there any user-facing changes?
no
Notes
It would probably be good to simply remove the copy in DataFusion and use the one upstream in arrow, but given #765 I thought it would be prudent to wait until we are are more confident to do so