Revert [SPARK-50215][SQL] Refactored StringType pattern matching in jdbc code stack #48833
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
|
@MaxGekk please take a look for this revert as we discussed offline. |
MaxGekk
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
Member
|
The failed GA Run / Run Docker integration tests is not related. +1, LGTM. Merging to master. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
I propose reverting the PR for changing pattern matching of
StringTypein the jdbc code stack, since it may lead to collated column being mapped to uncollated column in some dialects. For the time being, this is not the correct behavior.Why are the changes needed?
These changes are needed in order to preserve proper behavior in the dialects regarding datatype mapping.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
No testing was needed.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.