lidavidm commented on a change in pull request #11999:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/11999#discussion_r820776537
##########
File path: format/FlightSql.proto
##########
@@ -933,6 +933,16 @@ message CommandGetDbSchemas {
* [optional] table_schema: bytes not null (schema of the table as described
in Schema.fbs::Schema,
* it is serialized as an IPC
message.)
* >
+ * Fields on table_schema may contain the following metadata:
+ * - ARROW:FLIGHT:SQL:CATALOG_NAME - Table's catalog name
+ * - ARROW:FLIGHT:SQL:DB_SCHEMA_NAME - Database schema name
+ * - ARROW:FLIGHT:SQL:TABLE_NAME - Table name
+ * - ARROW:FLIGHT:SQL:PRECISION - Column precision/size
+ * - ARROW:FLIGHT:SQL:SCALE - Column scale/decimal digits
Review comment:
Should we annotate this as `(if applicable for the column type)` or
something?
##########
File path: format/FlightSql.proto
##########
@@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ enum SqlInfo {
* - return 3 (\b11) => [SQL_SUBQUERIES_IN_COMPARISONS,
SQL_SUBQUERIES_IN_EXISTS];
* - return 4 (\b100) => [SQL_SUBQUERIES_IN_INS];
* - return 5 (\b101) => [SQL_SUBQUERIES_IN_COMPARISONS,
SQL_SUBQUERIES_IN_INS];
- * - return 6 (\b110) => [SQL_SUBQUERIES_IN_INS,
SQL_SUBQUERIES_IN_EXISTS];
+ * - return 6 (\b110) => [SQL_SUBQUERIES_IN_COMPARISONS,
SQL_SUBQUERIES_IN_EXISTS];
Review comment:
Yes, this seems wrong. Additionally the enum values are sequential (0,
1, 2, 3) not bitmasks (unless those values are intended to be bit indices in
which case we should document them as such).
--
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]
