-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 409
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
Add coprocessor support in TiFlash #161
Conversation
* fix cop test regression * address comments * format code
* fix cop test regression * address comments * format code * fix npe for dag execute * format code * address comment * add some comments
/run-integration-tests |
* fix mutex contention * add const ref
|
* 1. remove duplicate agg funcs, 2. for column ref expr, change column_id to column_index since the value stored in column ref expr is not column id * bug fix
required_columns.push_back(pk_handle_col->get().name); | ||
auto pair = storage->getColumns().getPhysical(pk_handle_col->get().name); | ||
source_columns.push_back(pair); | ||
is_ts_column.push_back(false); |
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.
If pk_handle_col->get().tp
is TiDB::TypeTimestamp
, this chould be true?
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.
No, timestamp col will never be pk handle col
Co-Authored-By: JaySon <jayson.hjs@gmail.com>
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.
LGTM
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.
LGTM
/run-integration-tests |
3 similar comments
/run-integration-tests |
/run-integration-tests |
/run-integration-tests |
No description provided.