Yes, it sounds good to me. We can upgrade both Parquet 1.8.2 to 1.8.3 and ORC 1.4.1 to 1.4.3 in our upcoming Spark 2.3.1 release.
Thanks for your efforts! @Henry and @Dongjoon Xiao 2018-04-16 14:41 GMT-07:00 Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org>: > Seems like there aren't any objections. I'll pick this thread back up when > a Parquet maintenance release has happened. > > Henry > > On 11 April 2018 at 14:00, Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Great. >> >> If we can upgrade the parquet dependency from 1.8.2 to 1.8.3 in Apache >> Spark 2.3.1, let's upgrade orc dependency from 1.4.1 to 1.4.3 together. >> >> Currently, the patch is only merged into master branch now. 1.4.1 has the >> following issue. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-23340 >> >> Bests, >> Dongjoon. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: >> >>> Seems like this would make sense... we usually make maintenance releases >>> for bug fixes after a month anyway. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
