Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove type-coercion from physical planner #3388

Closed
Tracked by #2355
andygrove opened this issue Sep 7, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3396
Closed
Tracked by #2355

Remove type-coercion from physical planner #3388

andygrove opened this issue Sep 7, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3396
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@andygrove
Copy link
Member

Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge? Please describe what you are trying to do.
Now that type coercion happens in the logical plan, we no longer need to do this in the physical plan.

See the discussion in #3254 (comment) for an example of a bug that can occur if we do the type-coercion in both places.

Describe the solution you'd like
Remove type coercion from physical plan.

Describe alternatives you've considered
None

Additional context
None

@liukun4515
Copy link
Contributor

support the inlist type coercion in the logical phase #3468

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants