Depends how you want to play this. As usual a cost/benefit analysis will be useful
*Immediate Removal in Spark 3.5.5*: pros: Quickly removes the problematic configuration, reducing technical debt and potential issues. cons: Users upgrading directly from earlier versions to Spark 3.5.5 or later will face immediate breakage without a deprecation period. *Deprecation in Spark 3.5.5 and Removal in Spark 4.0.0:* pros: Provides a clear deprecation period, allowing users to migrate their configurations. Reduces the risk of breakage for users who follow recommended upgrade paths. cons: Users who skip versions might still face issues. The depreciation period might be seen as too short if Spark 4.0.0 is released soon after Spark 3.5.5, most probably *Extended Deprecation Period:* pros: Provides a longer migration window, reducing the risk of breakage for users who jump versions. cons: Delays the removal of the configuration, potentially prolonging technical challenges and issues related to the deprecated configuration. *My take* 1. Deprecate in Spark 3.5.5: Introduce deprecation warnings in Spark 3.5.5 that the spark.databricks.* configuration will be removed in Spark 4.0.0. 2. Remove in Spark 4.0.0: Remove the configuration in Spark 4.0.0, providing a clear upgrade path and sufficient notice for users to migrate. 3. User Communication: Ensure that deprecation warnings are prominent in the documentation, release notes, and runtime logs. Recommend upgrading through intermediate versions to avoid breakage. HTH Dr Mich Talebzadeh, Architect | Data Science | Financial Crime | Forensic Analysis | GDPR view my Linkedin profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mich-talebzadeh-ph-d-5205b2/> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 00:41, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > Though if we are OK with disturbing users to read the migration guide to > figure out the change for the case of direct upgrade to Spark 4.0.0+, I > agree this is also one of the valid ways. > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 9:20 AM Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The point is, why can't we remove it from Spark 3.5.5 as well if we are >> planning to "remove" (not deprecate) at the very next minor release? >> >> The logic of migration just works without having the incorrect config key >> to be indicated with SQL config key. >> >> That said, the point we debate here is only valid when we want to let >> users keep setting the value of the config manually for some time. I'd >> argue users would never set this manually, but let's put this aside for now. >> >> What is the proper "some time" here? If we deprecate this in Spark 3.5.5 >> and remove it to Spark 4.0.0, we are going to break the case of setting the >> config manually when they are upgrading Spark 3.5.4 to Spark 4.0.0 >> directly. I have no idea how we construct the message to recommend >> upgrading from Spark 3.5.4 to Spark 3.5.5, but if it's not strong enough, >> there will always be a case who directly jumps major/minor versions, and >> for them, effectively we do not deprecate the config very well. >> >> I suspect there would be a huge difference if we just remove it in Spark >> 3.5.5 and only support the migration case. That has been something I >> claimed if we really want to kick the incorrect config out ASAP. If we want >> to do this gracefully, I don't feel like removing this in Spark 4.0.0 is >> giving users enough time to indicate the config is deprecated and will be >> removed very soon. >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 2:24 AM Holden Karau <holden.ka...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I think that removing in 4 sounds reasonable to me as well. It’s >>> important to create a sense of fairness among vendors. >>> >>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >>> Fight Health Insurance: https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/ >>> <https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/?q=hk_email> >>> Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): >>> https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> >>> YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau >>> Pronouns: she/her >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 11:22 AM Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think there is a reason to keep it at 4.0.0 (and forever?) if >>>> we release Spark 3.5.5 with the proper deprecation. This is a big >>>> difference, Wenchen. >>>> >>>> And, the difference is the main reason why I initiated this thread to >>>> sugguest to remove 'spark.databricks.*' completely from Apache Spark 4 via >>>> volunteering Spark 3.5.5 release manager. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Dongjoon >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 22:59 Wenchen Fan <cloud0...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It’s unfortunate that we missed identifying these issues during the >>>>> code review. However, since they have already been released, I believe >>>>> deprecating them is a better approach than removing them, as the latter >>>>> would introduce a breaking change. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding Jungtaek’s PR <https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49983>, >>>>> it looks like there are only a few lines of migration code. Would it be >>>>> acceptable to leave them for legacy support? With the new config name >>>>> style >>>>> check rule in place, such issues should not occur again in the future. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 9:00 AM Jungtaek Lim < >>>>> kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think I can add a color to minimize the concern. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problematic config we added is arguably not user facing. I'd >>>>>> argue moderate users wouldn't even understand what the flag is doing. The >>>>>> config was added because Structured Streaming has been leveraging SQL >>>>>> config to "do the magic" on having two different default values for new >>>>>> query vs old query (checkpoint is created from the version where the fix >>>>>> is >>>>>> not landed). This is purely used for backward compatibility, not >>>>>> something >>>>>> we want to give users flexibility. >>>>>> >>>>>> That said, I don't see a risk of removing config "at any point". (I'd >>>>>> even say removing this config in Spark 3.5.5 does not change anything. >>>>>> The >>>>>> reason I'm not removing the config in 3.5 (and yet to 4.0/master) is just >>>>>> to address any concern on being conservative.) >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you are worrying about case 1 from my comment. From my new >>>>>> change (link <https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49983>), I made a >>>>>> migration logic when the offset log contains the problematic >>>>>> configuration >>>>>> - we will take the value, but put the value to the new config, and at the >>>>>> next microbatch planning, the offset log will contain the new >>>>>> configuration >>>>>> going forward. This addresses the case 1, as long as we retain the >>>>>> migration logic for a couple minor releases (say, 4.2 or so). We just >>>>>> need >>>>>> to support this migration logic for the time where we never thought of >>>>>> jumping directly from Spark 3.5.4 to the version. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hope this helps to address your concern/worrying. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 7:40 AM Bjørn Jørgensen < >>>>>> bjornjorgen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Having breaking changes in a minor seems not that good.. As I'm >>>>>>> reading this, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "*This could break the query if the rule impacts the query, because >>>>>>> the effectiveness of the fix is flipped.*" >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49897#issuecomment-2652567140 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What if we have this https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/48149 >>>>>>> change in the branch and remove it only for version 4? That way we dont >>>>>>> break anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> man. 17. feb. 2025 kl. 23:03 skrev Dongjoon Hyun < >>>>>>> dongjoon.h...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, All. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to highlight this discussion because this is more >>>>>>>> important and tricky in a way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As already mentioned in the mailing list and PRs, there was an >>>>>>>> obvious mistake >>>>>>>> which missed an improper configuration name, `spark.databricks.*`. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/a6f220d951742f4074b37772485ee0ec7a774e7d/sql/catalyst/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/internal/SQLConf.scala#L3424 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> `spark.databricks.sql.optimizer.pruneFiltersCanPruneStreamingSubplan` >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In fact, Apache Spark committers have been preventing this >>>>>>>> repetitive mistake >>>>>>>> pattern during the review stages successfully until we slip the >>>>>>>> following backportings >>>>>>>> at Apache Spark 3.5.4. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/45649 >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/48149 >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49121 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At this point of writing, `spark.databricks.*` was removed >>>>>>>> successfully from `master` >>>>>>>> and `branch-4.0` and a new ScalaStyle rule was added to protect >>>>>>>> Apache Spark repository >>>>>>>> from future mistakes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> SPARK-51172 Rename to >>>>>>>> spark.sql.optimizer.pruneFiltersCanPruneStreamingSubplan >>>>>>>> SPARK-51173 Add `configName` Scalastyle rule >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I proposed is to release Apache Spark 3.5.5 next week with the >>>>>>>> deprecation >>>>>>>> in order to make Apache Spark 4.0 be free of `spark.databricks.*` >>>>>>>> configuration. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apache Spark 3.5.5 (2025 February, with deprecation warning with >>>>>>>> alternative) >>>>>>>> Apache Spark 4.0.0 (2025 March, without `spark.databricks.*` config) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In addition, I'd like to volunteer as a release manager of Apache >>>>>>>> Spark 3.5.5 >>>>>>>> for a swift release. WDYT? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FYI, `branch-3.5` has 37 patches currently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> $ git log --oneline v3.5.4..HEAD | wc -l >>>>>>>> 37 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>> Dongjoon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Bjørn Jørgensen >>>>>>> Vestre Aspehaug 4, 6010 Ålesund >>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Vestre+Aspehaug+4,+6010+%C3%85lesund++Norge?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>>>> Norge >>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Vestre+Aspehaug+4,+6010+%C3%85lesund++Norge?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +47 480 94 297 >>>>>>> >>>>>>
