Github user marmbrus commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/6853#discussion_r32770569
--- Diff:
sql/catalyst/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/analysis/Analyzer.scala
---
@@ -315,25 +315,20 @@ class Analyzer(
if
AttributeSet(windowExpressions.map(_.toAttribute)).intersect(conflictingAttributes)
.nonEmpty =>
(oldVersion, oldVersion.copy(windowExpressions =
newAliases(windowExpressions)))
- }.headOption.getOrElse { // Only handle first case, others will be
fixed on the next pass.
- sys.error(
- s"""
- |Failure when resolving conflicting references in Join:
- |$plan
- |
- |Conflicting attributes:
${conflictingAttributes.mkString(",")}
- """.stripMargin)
- }
-
- val attributeRewrites =
AttributeMap(oldRelation.output.zip(newRelation.output))
- val newRight = right transformUp {
- case r if r == oldRelation => newRelation
- } transformUp {
- case other => other transformExpressions {
- case a: Attribute => attributeRewrites.get(a).getOrElse(a)
- }
+ }.headOption match {
--- End diff --
Perhaps, `.headOptions.foreach { case (oldRelation, newRelation) =>`
It might also be good to assign the input to an intermediate variable so we
can interpose a comment here that explains that an empty option implies there
is some type of node that produces references that we don't know how to handle
with this rule. These conflicting attributes will either be handled by another
rule or an error will be thrown in check analysis.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
