Github user lw-lin commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/14214
Sure let's rewrite the incremental planner to solve problems more
holistically; actually this patch is not satisfying to myself either. So I'm
closing this, and -- thank you for the ideas!
---
If
Github user marmbrus commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/14214
Thanks for working on this, but I'm tempted to close this as "won't fix".
Its likely we are going to have to rewrite the incremental planner completely
for 2.1 and this is just a minor
Github user lw-lin commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/14214
@marmbrus @zsxwing could you take a look and share some ideas? Thanks!
---
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
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/14214
Merged build finished. Test PASSed.
---
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
Github user AmplabJenkins commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/14214
Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/62368/
Test PASSed.
---
Github user SparkQA commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/14214
**[Test build #62368 has
finished](https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/62368/consoleFull)**
for PR 14214 at commit
Github user mariobriggs commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/14214
>Yea we probably do not want to modify this public API; so what we did in
this patch was, passing [3]'s incrementalExecution into the listener so we
would initialize physical planning only once
