On 11 April 2018 at 12:47, Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> wrote:
> I think a 1.8.3 Parquet release makes sense for the 2.3.x releases of > Spark. > > To be clear though, this only affects Spark when reading data written by > Impala, right? Or does Parquet CPP also produce data like this? > I don't know about parquet-cpp, but yeah, the only implementation I've seen writing the half-completed stats is Impala. (as you know, that's compliant with the spec, just an unusual choice). > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi all - >> >> SPARK-23852 (where a query can silently give wrong results thanks to a >> predicate pushdown bug in Parquet) is a fairly bad bug. In other projects >> I've been involved with, we've released maintenance releases for bugs of >> this severity. >> >> Since Spark 2.4.0 is probably a while away, I wanted to see if there was >> any consensus over whether we should consider (at least) a 2.3.1. >> >> The reason this particular issue is a bit tricky is that the Parquet >> community haven't yet produced a maintenance release that fixes the >> underlying bug, but they are in the process of releasing a new minor >> version, 1.10, which includes a fix. Having spoken to a couple of Parquet >> developers, they'd be willing to consider a maintenance release, but would >> probably only bother if we (or another affected project) asked them to. >> >> My guess is that we wouldn't want to upgrade to a new minor version of >> Parquet for a Spark maintenance release, so asking for a Parquet >> maintenance release makes sense. >> >> What does everyone think? >> >> Best, >> Henry >> > > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Netflix >
