Github user HyukjinKwon commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21537 I know and agree it ended up with many regressions and bugs (strictly I meant those by behaviour changes, which was my mistake). I have been following that and I am glad that it has been reverted by another way. But I am pretty sure AnalysisBarrier motivated another way to solve it and we found introducing AnalysisBarrier might be not a good idea after getting that in, in practice. We should of course have the sufficient discussion ahead but I mean it doesn't not necessarily is a disaster. We just tried one way, found problem / better alternative and fixed that by the original try. It shouldn't be frequent but I think it would've needed more time or never been fixed without the original try. This PR is relatively less critical comparing to that, and I usually merge PRs if that looks less risky or similar cases are merged. It has been open more than one month and that's why I checked this one over a week. Ideally, it's good if we have sufficient discussion for every change but in practice we can't. I think we need more active committers or reviewers, rather then just leaving those PR open. Also, we should consider revert https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/21193 too if this one is considered to be reverted. I wonder why this one was specially being considered to be reverted, and you say that in this PR. @viirya and @mgaido91 have been taking looks into these areas as far as I can tell, and anyone could lead if they are willing to do that I believe. The works and efforts were mostly done by @viirya and in this case it looks reasonably it makes sense to ask him. It just looked to me weird because it sounds to me who's an expert and better.
--- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org