[SPARK-44178][CONNECT] Support positional parameters in sql()#41698
Closed
MaxGekk wants to merge 6 commits into
Closed
[SPARK-44178][CONNECT] Support positional parameters in sql()#41698MaxGekk wants to merge 6 commits into
sql()#41698MaxGekk wants to merge 6 commits into
Conversation
sql()sql()
Member
Author
|
@grundprinzip @hvanhovell @cloud-fan @ueshin @HyukjinKwon Could you have a look at the PR, please. |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
In the PR, I propose to add a sequence of literal expressions to
SqlCommandand theSQLrelationSparkSession. sqlThis PR is a follow up of #41568.
Why are the changes needed?
Currently
SparkSession.sqlin Spark Connect doesn't support parameterized SQL with positional parameters. The changes allow to achieve feature parity with Scala/Java/PySpark APIs.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No, the changes just extend the existing API.
How was this patch tested?
By running new test: