Hi Cheng, Thanks for working on this fix.
Since this has already been merged into branch-4.2, I will trust your judgment on the fix itself, but I do have some concerns about the process. The PR was opened over the weekend, Monday was a US holiday, and the 12-hour notice was sent at 10:59 PM Monday night Pacific time. In practice, that did not leave enough review time before merging into the release branch. This is especially concerning for a last-minute change close to RC that includes an API change and behavior changes beyond the narrow correctness issue. For future 4.2.0 release-branch changes, could we please allow more practical review time? Thanks, Huaxin On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 10:59 PM Cheng Pan <[email protected]> wrote: > Huaxin, thank you for replying. > > I would not treat it as a hard blocker given it has been existing for a > long time the impact scope is fairly narrow, but still good to get the fix > include the 4.2.0 given the fix is a relatively small change. > > > The PR also includes API changes and new TABLESAMPLE SYSTEM support ... > > … unless you think the correctness fix needs to be split out separately. > > 3 parts mentioned in the PR description can be split into dedicated PRs, > but the correctness fix for (1) requires the API change; the change for (2) > (3) are small, I put them together mainly for demonstration of why the API > change makes sense. I’m fine to split the PR and defer the "new TABLESAMPLE > SYSTEM support” to 4.3 if you think it’s risky. > > The PR has been reviewed and approved by cloud-fan, I will leave it open > for another 12 hours and merge it as is if no further comments. > > Thanks, > Cheng Pan > > > > On May 26, 2026, at 00:53, huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Cheng, > > Thanks for flagging this. The withReplacement = true pushdown issue looks > valid, but the impact seems fairly narrow. It mainly affects users doing > JDBC TABLESAMPLE pushdown with withReplacement = true on PostgreSQL or > Databricks. The PR also includes API changes and new TABLESAMPLE SYSTEM > support, which feels more like a 4.2.1 candidate than a last-minute RC > change. > > Could you evaluate the risk of merging at the last minute? Otherwise I'd > prefer 4.2.1, unless you think the correctness fix needs to be split out > separately. > > Thanks, > > Huaxin > > On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 3:27 AM Cheng Pan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Huaxin, >> >> I found some issues in the implementation of JDBC connector TABLESAMPLE >> pushdown, I opened SPARK-57040 and >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/56092, it would be great if you >> could take a look and evaluate whether this is a blocker and should be >> included in 4.2.0 since you are the author of this feature. >> >> Thanks, >> Cheng Pan >> >> >> >> On May 18, 2026, at 11:40, huaxin gao <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I plan to cut Spark 4.2.0 RC1 on May 20, assuming there are no >> outstanding release blockers. >> >> If you have any fixes that must be included in 4.2.0, please make sure >> they are merged/backported to branch-4.2 before then. If you are aware >> of any release blockers, please reply with the JIRA/PR and current status. >> >> Thanks, >> Huaxin >> >> >> >
