fangchenli opened a new pull request, #23442:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/23442
## Which issue does this PR close?
<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can
link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes #123`
indicates that this PR will close issue #123.
-->
- Closes #23434..
## Rationale for this change
<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in
the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your
changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
-->
A cross join over two inputs whose schemas share a metadata key with
different
values produced a physical schema that disagreed with the logical plan, so
when
the cross join fed an aggregate the planner failed with "Physical input
schema
should be the same as the one converted from logical input schema".
The logical plan and the shared `build_join_schema` helper merge inner-join
metadata left-biased, but `CrossJoinExec::new` merged its own schema
right-biased
(`left.metadata().extend(right)`). #16221 fixed the shared helper for hash
and
nested-loop joins but never touched cross join.
## What changes are included in this PR?
<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is
sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR.
-->
Route `CrossJoinExec::new` through the shared `build_join_schema` helper so
its
metadata merges the same way as the logical plan. Field output is unchanged
for
inner joins.
## Are these changes tested?
<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code
If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are
they covered by existing tests)?
-->
Yes, a `metadata.slt` regression that cross-joins two tables with conflicting
schema metadata into an aggregate. It failed with the internal error before
and
passes after.
## Are there any user-facing changes?
<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
-->
<!--
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->
Bug fix only: affected cross joins now plan and run instead of erroring. No
API
changes.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
