Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[SPARK-27870][PYTHON][FOLLOW-UP] Rename spark.sql.pandas.udf.buffer.size to spark.sql.execution.pandas.udf.buffer.size - #27450
Closed
HyukjinKwon wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
cloud-fan
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2020
WeichenXu123
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2020
HyukjinKwon
commented
Feb 4, 2020
MemberAuthor
retest this please |
1 similar comment
cloud-fan
commented
Feb 4, 2020
Contributor
retest this please |
cloud-fan
commented
Feb 4, 2020
Contributor
Seems jenkins has an issue |
HyukjinKwon
commented
Feb 4, 2020
MemberAuthor
cc @shaneknapp fyi |
cloud-fan
commented
Feb 4, 2020
Contributor
retest this please |
MaxGekk
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2020
shaneknapp
commented
Feb 4, 2020
Contributor
that worker has a bad hard drive and has been taken offline. |
shaneknapp
commented
Feb 4, 2020
Contributor
test this please |
viirya
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2020
SparkQA
commented
Feb 5, 2020
Test build #117863 has finished for PR 27450 at commit
|
HyukjinKwon
commented
Feb 5, 2020
MemberAuthor
The tests will be fixed at #27460. I am going to merge this. |
HyukjinKwon
commented
Feb 5, 2020
MemberAuthor
Merged to master. |
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Feb 5, 2020
Member
All tests passed. The R failure is a known issue. Merged to master. |
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Feb 5, 2020
Member
Oh, @HyukjinKwon is faster. :) |
HyukjinKwon added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2020
…ize to spark.sql.execution.pandas.udf.buffer.size ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR renames `spark.sql.pandas.udf.buffer.size` to `spark.sql.execution.pandas.udf.buffer.size` to be more consistent with other pandas configuration prefixes, given: - `spark.sql.execution.pandas.arrowSafeTypeConversion` - `spark.sql.execution.pandas.respectSessionTimeZone` - `spark.sql.legacy.execution.pandas.groupedMap.assignColumnsByName` - other configurations like `spark.sql.execution.arrow.*`. ### Why are the changes needed? To make configuration names consistent. ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change? No because this configuration was not released yet. ### How was this patch tested? Existing tests should cover. Closes#27450 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-27870-followup. Authored-by: HyukjinKwon <gurwls223@apache.org> Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <gurwls223@apache.org>
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 freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
8 participants
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?
This PR renames
spark.sql.pandas.udf.buffer.sizetospark.sql.execution.pandas.udf.buffer.sizeto be more consistent with other pandas configuration prefixes, given:spark.sql.execution.pandas.arrowSafeTypeConversionspark.sql.execution.pandas.respectSessionTimeZonespark.sql.legacy.execution.pandas.groupedMap.assignColumnsByNamespark.sql.execution.arrow.*.Why are the changes needed?
To make configuration names consistent.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No because this configuration was not released yet.
How was this patch tested?
Existing tests should cover.