pepijnve commented on code in PR #25887:
URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/25887#discussion_r4192408374
##########
datafusion/sql/src/statement.rs:
##########
@@ -3171,14 +3172,31 @@ FROM (
}
/// Return true if there is a table provider available for "schema.table"
- fn has_table(&self, schema: &str, table: &str) -> bool {
- let tables_reference = TableReference::Partial {
- schema: schema.into(),
- table: table.into(),
+ fn resolve_info_table(&self, table: &str) -> Option<TableReference> {
+ let table_reference = if let Some(system_catalog) =
Review Comment:
See other comment. Might be best to peek ahead at PR #26057 where this goes
away entirely. In a nutshell, what I've done there is to change the planning of
`show ...` statements so that they're not dependent on `information_schema` at
all. That makes this resolution method disappear entirely.
##########
datafusion/sql/src/statement.rs:
##########
@@ -3171,14 +3172,31 @@ FROM (
}
/// Return true if there is a table provider available for "schema.table"
- fn has_table(&self, schema: &str, table: &str) -> bool {
- let tables_reference = TableReference::Partial {
- schema: schema.into(),
- table: table.into(),
+ fn resolve_info_table(&self, table: &str) -> Option<TableReference> {
+ let table_reference = if let Some(system_catalog) =
Review Comment:
See other comment. Might be best to peek ahead at PR #26057 where this goes
away entirely. In a nutshell, what I've done there is to change the planning of
`show ...` statements so that they're not dependent on `information_schema` at
all.
--
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]
