[GitHub] [calcite] amaliujia commented on issue #1457: [WIP][Prototype][CALCITE-3340] TUMBLE as a TableFunction

amaliujia commented on issue #1457: [WIP][Prototype][CALCITE-3340] TUMBLE as a TableFunction URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1457#issuecomment-554228194 Will close this PR. The progress now is in https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1587.

[GitHub] [calcite] amaliujia commented on issue #1457: [WIP][Prototype][CALCITE-3340] TUMBLE as a TableFunction

amaliujia commented on issue #1457: [WIP][Prototype][CALCITE-3340] TUMBLE as a TableFunction URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1457#issuecomment-535740516 Sounds good then. This is an automated message from the

[GitHub] [calcite] amaliujia commented on issue #1457: [WIP][Prototype][CALCITE-3340] TUMBLE as a TableFunction

amaliujia commented on issue #1457: [WIP][Prototype][CALCITE-3340] TUMBLE as a TableFunction URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1457#issuecomment-535658020 @julianhyde I like your idea. So we save "TUMBLE" for one operator and use a new name for another operator, but Parser will

[GitHub] [calcite] amaliujia commented on issue #1457: [WIP][Prototype][CALCITE-3340] TUMBLE as a TableFunction

amaliujia commented on issue #1457: [WIP][Prototype][CALCITE-3340] TUMBLE as a TableFunction URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1457#issuecomment-535644233 Ok If I have understood @LiShuMing's original question: I explained why changing Parser.jj in [1]. So I think

[GitHub] [calcite] amaliujia commented on issue #1457: [WIP][Prototype][CALCITE-3340] TUMBLE as a TableFunction

amaliujia commented on issue #1457: [WIP][Prototype][CALCITE-3340] TUMBLE as a TableFunction URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1457#issuecomment-535347101 Hi @LiShuMing, are you saying that try to use UDF for `TUMBLE` than adding it as a built-in operator?