berkaysynnada commented on PR #15769: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/15769#issuecomment-2828241765
> I'm not really sure how this degrades anything. The end result is the same, users won't see any difference. Logical planning results are changing. We are also using DF end-to-end, but there could always be people only relying on logical plans of DF. > We might be able to leave the stuff in TableProvider in place but we'll be dealing with duplication and confusing methods on DataSource, which is already a complex bit of code. When I first tried to implement it this way I ran into cases with duplicate pushdown and other confusing scenarios. Probably it could have been resolved but I felt like why make one of the most complex bits in DataFusion even more complex instead of simplifying it where possible. I'm also challenging to decide to be which side because of that complexity :D I will take a look to other parts in this PR, and try to find a solution for the points like https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/15769/files#r2051612926. Maybe there isn't something wrong at all as you said, there is no harm to double check -- 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: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: github-h...@datafusion.apache.org
