dengzhhu653 commented on code in PR #6240:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hive/pull/6240#discussion_r2766942714
##########
ql/src/test/results/clientpositive/llap/ppd_like_filter.q.out:
##########
@@ -256,3 +256,51 @@ POSTHOOK: type: QUERY
POSTHOOK: Input: default@test_tbl
POSTHOOK: Input: default@test_tbl@b=d_%5C%25ae
#### A masked pattern was here ####
+PREHOOK: query: select * from test_tbl where b like 'a.*'
Review Comment:
> The result could be different before this patch just like the updated
ppd_like_filter.q test shows, we are fixing it here. Pls correct me if I miss
something.
I don't get it here, why would it cause different result without this PR?
in case both the jdo and direct sql accept the SQL type pattern.
> Both direct implement and JDO implement supports java pattern and sql
filter, which is what we do here.
The reason is the java pattern is much more complex, imaging a java regex
for IP: `^(\d{1,3})\.(\d{1,3})\.(\d{1,3})\.(\d{1,3})$`, changing it to a sql
filter looks quite hard and not easy to test.
> Declare in the user document that filter is SQL only, and escape the java
pattern in JDO implement of each API.
We can add some annotations in IMetastoreClient to tell which pattern type
is accepted
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
