jcw024 commented on code in PR #52062: URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/52062#discussion_r2299897258
########## sql/core/src/test/resources/sql-tests/analyzer-results/timestamp-ltz.sql.out: ########## @@ -29,21 +29,102 @@ Project [to_timestamp_ltz(to_timestamp_ntz(cast(null as string), None, Timestamp -- !query SELECT make_timestamp_ltz(2021, 07, 11, 6, 30, 45.678) -- !query analysis -Project [make_timestamp_ltz(2021, 7, 11, 6, 30, cast(45.678 as decimal(16,6)), None, Some(America/Los_Angeles), true, TimestampType) AS make_timestamp_ltz(2021, 7, 11, 6, 30, 45.678)#x] +Project [make_timestamp_ltz(2021, 7, 11, 6, 30, cast(45.678 as decimal(16,6)), None, Some(America/Los_Angeles), true, TimestampType) AS make_timestamp(2021, 7, 11, 6, 30, 45.678)#x] Review Comment: I think I might understand why, but just double checking, is there a reason to prefer make_timestamp over make_timestamp_ltz here (and in the rest of the tests being added)? My initial thought was it would make sense to use make_timestamp_ltz to match the query -- 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: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: reviews-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: reviews-h...@spark.apache.org
