HIVE-29413: Avoid code duplication by updating getPartCols method for iceberg tables#6337
Open
ramitg254 wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
Open
HIVE-29413: Avoid code duplication by updating getPartCols method for iceberg tables#6337ramitg254 wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
ramitg254 wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
Conversation
30885c1 to
708d3f7
Compare
1064074 to
9046345
Compare
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.



What changes were proposed in this pull request?
updated getPartCols method and introduced a boolean parameter in it to handle partition keys needed for non native tables and to get rid of this kind of code redundancy in some places:
Why are the changes needed?
to avoid code redundancy and have a common method to retrieve keys for both native and non native tables.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
locally