GH-49792: [Format][FlightSQL][C++] Add dialect-related SqlInfo codes#49796
Open
tokoko wants to merge 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom
Open
GH-49792: [Format][FlightSQL][C++] Add dialect-related SqlInfo codes#49796tokoko wants to merge 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom
tokoko wants to merge 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Rationale for this change
Fills gaps in
SqlInfodialect metadata for axes that clients need when compiling SQL per-backend. Motivation and use case in #49792.What changes are included in this PR?
format/FlightSql.proto— four newint32_bitmaskSqlInfocodes (577–580):SQL_SUPPORTED_LIMIT_OFFSET,SQL_SUPPORTED_NULLS_ORDERING,SQL_SUPPORTED_BOOLEAN_LITERAL,SQL_SUPPORTED_DATETIME_LITERAL.TRUE/FALSEand1/0). Follows the existingSQL_SUPPORTED_GROUP_BY/SupportedSqlGrammarconvention — enum values are bit positions;SQL_SUPPORTED_NULLS_ORDERING(578) is intentionally distinct from the pre-existingSQL_NULL_ORDERING(507) — the latter reports the server's default null ordering; the new flag reports whether the explicitNULLS FIRST/NULLS LASTclause is accepted.Are these changes tested?
No behavior change.
Are there any user-facing changes?
New
SqlInfocodes and supporting enums available to clients and servers. Fully backwards-compatible; no existing codes or types change.