-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Revert "[SPARK-49909][SQL] Fix the pretty name of some expressions" #48530
Conversation
This reverts commit 52538f0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1, LGTM. Thank you for reverting before Apache Spark 3.4.4, @panbingkun .
cc @MaxGekk |
Thanks all! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are the changes needed?
Only revert.
It would be nice if you provide some reasons for reverting the bug fix.
Okay, let me add something for it. |
Done. |
+1, LGTM. Merging to master. |
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? The pr aims to revert apache#48385. This reverts commit 52538f0. ### Why are the changes needed? When upgrading spark from `an old version` to `the latest version`, some end-users may rely on the `original schema` (`although it may not be correct`), which can make the `upgrade` very difficult. so, let's first restore it to its original state. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Pass GA ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes apache#48530 from panbingkun/SPARK-49909_revert. Authored-by: panbingkun <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]>
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
The pr aims to revert #48385.
This reverts commit 52538f0.
Why are the changes needed?
When upgrading spark from
an old version
tothe latest version
, some end-users may rely on theoriginal schema
(although it may not be correct
), which can make theupgrade
very difficult. so, let's first restore it to its original state.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Pass GA
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.