pengzhiwei created CALCITE-2630:
---
Summary: Convert SqlInOperator to a IN-Function
Key: CALCITE-2630
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2630
Project: Calcite
Issue Type:
I do not believe there is enough reason to block CALCITE-525. IMO, CALCITE-525
describes a problem that some Calcite users are facing and a reasonable
plugable solution. We should not be vetoing such a feature without providing
viable alternatives. (Without having checked the specific
My apologies for missing this thread a couple days ago. (Thanks for pinging
it.) Here's my two cents: taking care of contributors to the project is
just as important (if not more important) than taking care of the code. I'm
not saying we should merge terrible code just to keep each other happy,
Laurent Goujon created CALCITE-2629:
---
Summary: Unnecessary call to CatalogReader#getAllSchemaObjects in
CatalogScope
Key: CALCITE-2629
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2629
The Apache Jenkins build system has built Calcite-Master (build #943)
Status: Still Failing
Check console output at https://builds.apache.org/job/Calcite-Master/943/ to
view the results.
The Apache Jenkins build system has built Calcite-Master (build #942)
Status: Still Failing
Check console output at https://builds.apache.org/job/Calcite-Master/942/ to
view the results.
Vladimir,
You’ve made your points. And I hear them.
However I get the impression that you are not open to persuasion. Which means
that I am wasting my time trying to reach consensus with you. Which means that
people win arguments not on merit, but based upon who is most persistent.
Here is my
Juilian>Hey, folks. We need your input here.
Here are my thoughts:
1) I think the features we add should have at least some level of
consistency
2) It is much safer to adopt well-known features rather than be pioneers in
the field. I do not mean we must wait for someone else implement and try
out
Hey, folks. We need your input here. This is a crisis.
I do not want us to become a project where people rule by veto, override
consensus, and (heaven forbid) back out each other’s commits. But this case is
the third instance where this has happened (2438 and 2458 are the other
instances, all
