V1.2 histrionicus #16191
Merged
V1.2 histrionicus #16191
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…recognized options
This PR fixes #16094 First this was using `global_columns`, this list of columns is what the Reader is aware of, in this case the Parquet reader. This list is influenced by the `schema` parameter. `global_column_ids` comes from the `TableFunctionInitInput`, and will also contain artificial/generated columns like "filename"
ValidEnd was still using the old valid_start inter-chunk state variable instead of reading the correct value from the already computed ValidBegin vector. This would in turn generate incorrect bounds for RANGE FOLLOWING searches, leading to erratic frame bounds. ValidEnd was also incorrectly setting up the prev values to optimise the search, instead of having the frame functions set it up for each chunk. fixes: #16098 fixes: duckdblabs/duckdb-internal#4170
Fix test comment. fixes: #16098 fixes: duckdblabs/duckdb-internal#4170
I was performing some storage fault injection tests - where storage IO for one database repeatedly error. I was running into a case - where I was injecting a failure on optimistic write fsync at https://github.com/motherduckdb/duckdb/blob/dad112b203212a590cb764695abf911e93d6ceee/src/transaction/duck_transaction.cpp#L207 The problem is if we see a storage error on WAL truncate at the following - the program will terminate due to throwing an exception in a try/catch. https://github.com/motherduckdb/duckdb/blob/dad112b203212a590cb764695abf911e93d6ceee/src/transaction/duck_transaction.cpp#L211 I was curious on your thoughts on if the logic was refactored a bit to perform the rollback outside of the original try/catch. Some questions: * Is it ok to propagate the first exception if rollback fails? * Will the db be invalidated if a RevertCommit fails?
ValidEnd was still using the old valid_start inter-chunk state variable instead of reading the correct value from the already computed ValidBegin vector. This would in turn generate incorrect bounds for RANGE FOLLOWING searches, leading to erratic frame bounds. ValidEnd was also incorrectly setting up the prev values to optimise the search, instead of having the frame functions set it up for each chunk. fixes: #16098 fixes: duckdblabs/duckdb-internal#4170
…nrecognized options (#15919) The current implementation of AddExtensionOption immediately sets the default value into the current config, which makes sense. However, if the extension in question is loaded as part of the main database type, and the the value is already set by the caller, the default value shouldn't override it. On top of it, it may be that the current value may be in `unrecognized_options` where config options get to for unknown options. Now that the extension is loaded and the option is configured, it is nice to get it from there as well automatically. PS I don't know how to test it other than by hand with our extension. Guidance welcome.
8000
…from a dictionary vector
…e catalog search path of the current binder
This got lost during the column writer unification. This fixes a regression in the Parquet writer where, when writing large strings, the page size would be greatly underestimated. This is used upstream in the writer to limit page size to 100MB. Since the page size would be underestimated, we would be writing much larger pages than this when writing large strings, leading to potential memory issues. In addition, since Parquet pages are limited to 2GB (on account of page size being stored as an `int32`) - I think this could also lead to too large pages being written that could not be correctly represented in the Parquet spec in certain edge cases.
…to suggest the table name
|
This can be merged after #16194 is merged |
Antonov548
added a commit
to Antonov548/duckdb-r
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2025
V1.2 histrionicus (duckdb/duckdb#16191)
krlmlr
pushed a commit
to duckdb/duckdb-r
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2025
V1.2 histrionicus (duckdb/duckdb#16191)
krlmlr
added a commit
to duckdb/duckdb-r
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2025
V1.2 histrionicus (duckdb/duckdb#16191)
krlmlr
added a commit
to duckdb/duckdb-r
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2025
V1.2 histrionicus (duckdb/duckdb#16191)
krlmlr
added a commit
to duckdb/duckdb-r
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
V1.2 histrionicus (duckdb/duckdb#16191)
krlmlr
added a commit
to duckdb/duckdb-r
that referenced
this pull request
May 18, 2025
V1.2 histrionicus (duckdb/duckdb#16191)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.