Hello, Stuart. Personally, I think we should change current tables naming and return table in form of `schema.table`.
Valentin, could you share your opinion? В Пн, 20/08/2018 в 10:04 +0100, Stuart Macdonald пишет: > Igniters, > > While reviewing the changes for IGNITE-9228 [1,2], Nikolay and I are > discussing whether to introduce a change which may impact backwards > compatibility; Nikolay suggested we take the discussion to this list. > > Ignite implements a custom Spark catalog which provides an API by which > Spark users can list the tables which are available in Ignite which can be > queried via Spark SQL. Currently that table name list includes just the > names of the tables, but IGNITE-9228 is introducing a change which allows > optional prefixing of schema names to table names to disambiguate multiple > tables with the same name in different schemas. For the "list tables" API > we therefore have two options: > > 1. List the tables using both their table names and schema-qualified table > names (eg. [ "myTable", "mySchema.myTable" ]) even though they are the same > underlying table. This retains backwards compatibility with users who > expect "myTable" to appear in the catalog. > 2. List the tables using only their schema-qualified names. This eliminates > duplication of names in the catalog but will potentially break > compatibility with users who expect the table name in the catalog. > > With either option we will allow for Spark SQL SELECT statements to use > either table name or schema-qualified table names, this change would purely > impact the API which is used to list available tables. > > Any opinions would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Stuart. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9228 > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4551
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
