Skip to content

fix: make the sql feature truly optional#20625

Merged
adriangb merged 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
lakehq:sql-feature-fix
Mar 3, 2026
Merged

fix: make the sql feature truly optional#20625
adriangb merged 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
lakehq:sql-feature-fix

Conversation

@linhr
Copy link
Contributor

@linhr linhr commented Mar 1, 2026

Which issue does this PR close?

N/A

Rationale for this change

When enabling the recursive_protection feature for the datafusion crate, the sql feature is enabled. This is undesirable if the downstream project would like the sql feature to be off.

What changes are included in this PR?

Use the ? syntax for features of dependencies for recursive_protection. This was already correctly done for other features such as unicode_expressions.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/features.html

Are these changes tested?

N/A

Are there any user-facing changes?

This makes dependency management better for downstream projects and is not a breaking change.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the core Core DataFusion crate label Mar 1, 2026
@adriangb adriangb added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 3, 2026
Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit 0bf3767 Mar 3, 2026
31 checks passed
@adriangb
Copy link
Contributor

adriangb commented Mar 3, 2026

@comphead could you cherry pick this into the 53 branch?

@comphead
Copy link
Contributor

comphead commented Mar 3, 2026

@comphead could you cherry pick this into the 53 branch?

on it.

UPD: #20680

comphead pushed a commit to comphead/arrow-datafusion that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2026
## Which issue does this PR close?

N/A

## Rationale for this change

When enabling the `recursive_protection` feature for the `datafusion`
crate, the `sql` feature is enabled. This is undesirable if the
downstream project would like the `sql` feature to be off.

## What changes are included in this PR?

Use the `?` syntax for features of dependencies for
`recursive_protection`. This was already correctly done for other
features such as `unicode_expressions`.

<https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/features.html>

## Are these changes tested?

N/A

## Are there any user-facing changes?

This makes dependency management better for downstream projects and is
not a breaking change.
alamb pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2026
## Which issue does this PR close?

N/A

## Rationale for this change

Backport for #20625

When enabling the `recursive_protection` feature for the `datafusion`
crate, the `sql` feature is enabled. This is undesirable if the
downstream project would like the `sql` feature to be off.

## What changes are included in this PR?

Use the `?` syntax for features of dependencies for
`recursive_protection`. This was already correctly done for other
features such as `unicode_expressions`.

<https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/features.html>

## Are these changes tested?

N/A

## Are there any user-facing changes?

This makes dependency management better for downstream projects and is
not a breaking change.

## Which issue does this PR close?

<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases.
You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example
`Closes #123` indicates that this PR will close issue #123.
-->

- Closes #.

## Rationale for this change

<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly
in the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand
your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.
-->

## What changes are included in this PR?

<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it
is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this
PR.
-->

## Are these changes tested?

<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code

If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example,
are they covered by existing tests)?
-->

## Are there any user-facing changes?

<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.
-->

<!--
If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->

Co-authored-by: Heran Lin <heran@lakesail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

core Core DataFusion crate

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants