Github user mariobriggs commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/14214
> [1] should not be eliminated in general;
I dont understand the full internal aspects of IncrementalExecution, but
my generally thinking was that 1 can be eliminated because 'executedPlan' is a
' lazy val' on QueryExecution ?
>[2] is eliminated by this patch, by replacing the queryExecution with
incrementalExecution provided by [3];
If the goal is to get it to just as minimal as possible for now and wait
for SPARK-16264 (which i was also thinking where it will have to finally wait
for full resolution), why not keep [1] and the change to [2] be the simple case
of changing
[L52](https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/streaming/ForeachSink.scala#L52)
to the following
``` new Dataset(data.sparkSession, data.queryExecution,
implicitly[Encoder[T]]) ```
and no further changes required to your ealier code. Will it be the case
that the wrong physical plan will logged in SparkListenerSQLExecutionStart ?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
