alamb commented on PR #9743: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/9743#issuecomment-2022659150
Thank you @gstvg -- I think your solution 1.1 sounds like the best plan to me (and basically what this PR does). I think this PR is very important and will unlock several other great usecases for DataFusion so thank you again for working on it > Yes, you're right, named_struct doesn't require the struct udf, but some expr-based code somewhere may depend on it, it is enough to justify it's existance? I'm don't know much about the retrocompatibility guidelines of datafusion. I agree that it would be nice to remove the old struct udf -- let's do that as a follow on PR (where we can discuss the merits / requirements for backwards compatibility) It looks like @jayzhan211 and you are already busy working on the sqlparser support for supporting the duckdb style literal syntax 🙏 Thus here is what I think we should do: 1. Polish up this PR (add the tests described in https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/9743#discussion_r1536799585) 2. Work on removing the existing struct udf impl as a follow on PR 3. Work on the named struct syntax support as a follow on PR ( -- 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]
