Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
**[Test build #96423 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/96423/testReport)**
for PR 22494 at commit
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/96406/
Test PASSed.
---
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
**[Test build #96406 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/96406/testReport)**
for PR 22494 at commit
Github user mgaido91 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
> I'm talking about the specific query reported at
Github user cloud-fan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Sorry my mistake. I'm talking about the specific query reported at
Github user mgaido91 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
>The problem is, when users hit SPARK-25454, they must turn off both the
DECIMAL_OPERATIONS_ALLOW_PREC_LOSS and the new config.
If a user hits SPARK-25454, the value of
Github user cloud-fan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
I tried to add a new config, but decided to not do it. The problem is, when
users hit SPARK-25454, they must turn off both the
`DECIMAL_OPERATIONS_ALLOW_PREC_LOSS` and the new config.
Github user mgaido91 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
> If your argument is, picking a precise precision for literal is an
individual featue and not related to #20023, I'm OK to create a new config for
it.
Yes this is - I think - a better
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
**[Test build #96406 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/96406/testReport)**
for PR 22494 at commit
Github user dilipbiswal commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
retest this please
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Merged build finished. Test FAILed.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Test FAILed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/96392/
Test FAILed.
---
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
**[Test build #96392 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/96392/testReport)**
for PR 22494 at commit
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
**[Test build #96392 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/96392/testReport)**
for PR 22494 at commit
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user dilipbiswal commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
@cloud-fan The change looks fine to me. I looked at the failure. Its
correctly switches to old behaviour when this config is set to off.
---
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Merged build finished. Test FAILed.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Test FAILed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/96360/
Test FAILed.
---
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
**[Test build #96360 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/96360/testReport)**
for PR 22494 at commit
Github user cloud-fan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
why do we care about breaking operations when turning off a behavior change
config? The config is prepared for this case: if a user hit a problem of the
new behavior, he can use this config to
Github user mgaido91 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
> So I don't see any harm of this PR.
If the user doesn't turn off the flag, of course nothing changes. If the
user does, then let's imagine this case. A user has this: `select 1234567891
Github user cloud-fan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
This PR is a no-op if users don't turn off #20023 . The benefit of this PR
is: before we fully fix that bug, if a user hit it, he can turn off #20023 to
temporarily work around it. So I don't see
Github user mgaido91 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
yes @cloud-fan, I see your point. I am neutral to this change honestly.
It is true that it avoids regressions form previous cases, but it is also
true that it doesn't make the behavior
Github user cloud-fan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
2.3.2 and 2.4.0 are both in the RC stage, I don't want to spend a lot of
time to fix this long-standing bug and block 2 releases. cc @jerryshao too.
---
Github user cloud-fan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
yea, that's why I change the test to use `1e6 * 1000`, instead of `1000e6`.
The point is, we know there is a bug and it's hard to fix. What I'm trying
to do here is not fixing the bug,
Github user mgaido91 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
oh, I see now the problem. And it is much bigger than I thought, sorry.
Here we were returning a negative scale for `1e6` (it happens in the
`AstBuilder`, as we build a BigDecimal from it) also
Github user mgaido91 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Sure @cloud-fan, I'll do asap.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands,
Github user cloud-fan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
> So I think we can just add a check for avoiding a non-negative scale in
DecimalType.fromLiteral.
Can you open a PR for it? I did some experiments locally and this seems not
work.
---
Github user mgaido91 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
I don't really agree with this. As I mentioned
[here](https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22450#issuecomment-423077220), I
think we can avoid to use negative scales regardless of the value of the
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
**[Test build #96360 has
started](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/96360/testReport)**
for PR 22494 at commit
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional
Github user cloud-fan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
Maybe we should also consider to turn off
DECIMAL_OPERATIONS_ALLOW_PREC_LOSS by default.
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Github user cloud-fan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22494
cc @mgaido91 @gatorsmile
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
38 matches
Mail list logo
