rdblue commented on code in PR #9582:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9582#discussion_r1471690098
##########
spark/v3.5/spark-extensions/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/analysis/CheckViews.scala:
##########
@@ -36,6 +38,13 @@ object CheckViews extends (LogicalPlan => Unit) {
verifyColumnCount(ident, columnAliases, query)
SchemaUtils.checkColumnNameDuplication(query.schema.fieldNames,
SQLConf.get.resolver)
+ case UnsetViewProperties(ResolvedV2View(catalog, ident), propertyKeys,
ifExists) =>
Review Comment:
Check rules are intended to ensure that SQL is correct and valid, not to
check the execution. If you have this check here, it would fail when you run
`EXPLAIN ALTER VIEW ...` because this is doing execution work (checking for the
property) in the planner. Another way to think about this is that this isn't an
analysis failure, it is a runtime failure due to data. The SQL is perfectly
valid.
This should either be done in `AlterV2ViewExec` or not at all. I would lean
toward not doing this check at all. Shouldn't this be idempotent? Is there
value in failing to remove a property if it isn't there? I don't see value so
I'd ignore this and let the catalog throw an exception if it chooses to.
--
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: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
