[fix](Nereids) LogicalPlanDeepCopier copy scan conjuncts in wrong way #35076
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris. Since 2024-03-18, the Document has been moved to doris-website. |
morrySnow
added a commit
to morrySnow/incubator-doris
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2024
pick from master apache#35076 intro by PR apache#34933 This PR attempts to address the issue of losing conjuncts when performing a deep copy of the outer structure. However, the timing of copying the conjuncts is incorrect, resulting in the inability to map slots within the conjuncts to the output of the outer structure.
Contributor
Author
|
run buildall |
starocean999
previously approved these changes
May 20, 2024
github-actions
bot
added
the
approved
Contributor
|
PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested. |
Contributor
|
PR approved by anyone and no changes requested. |
morrySnow
force-pushed
the
fix_external_table_copy
branch
3 times, most recently
from
a6b4f45 to
2465c29
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
run buildall |
morrySnow
added a commit
to morrySnow/incubator-doris
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2024
pick from master apache#35076 intro by PR apache#34933 This PR attempts to address the issue of losing conjuncts when performing a deep copy of the outer structure. However, the timing of copying the conjuncts is incorrect, resulting in the inability to map slots within the conjuncts to the output of the outer structure.
Contributor
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
intro by PR apache#34894 This PR attempts to address the issue of losing conjuncts when performing a deep copy of the outer structure. However, the timing of copying the conjuncts is incorrect, resulting in the inability to map slots within the conjuncts to the output of the outer structure.
morrySnow
force-pushed
the
fix_external_table_copy
branch
from
2465c29 to
3def246
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
run buildall |
yiguolei
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2024
…#35077) pick from master #35076 intro by PR #34933 This PR attempts to address the issue of losing conjuncts when performing a deep copy of the outer structure. However, the timing of copying the conjuncts is incorrect, resulting in the inability to map slots within the conjuncts to the output of the outer structure.
starocean999
approved these changes
May 21, 2024
keanji-x
approved these changes
May 21, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
intro by PR #34894
This PR attempts to address the issue of losing conjuncts when performing a deep copy of the outer structure. However, the timing of copying the conjuncts is incorrect, resulting in the inability to map slots within the conjuncts to the output of the outer structure.
Proposed changes
Issue Number: close #xxx
Further comments
If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion at dev@doris.apache.org by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc...