-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.9k
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
planner: fix count(*)
return wrong value for information_schema.tables
#57506
Conversation
Hi @joechenrh. Thanks for your PR. PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #57506 +/- ##
================================================
+ Coverage 72.8325% 73.0465% +0.2139%
================================================
Files 1672 1676 +4
Lines 462833 467591 +4758
================================================
+ Hits 337093 341559 +4466
- Misses 104947 105287 +340
+ Partials 20793 20745 -48
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
/ok-to-test |
/retest |
count(*)
return wrong value for information schema tablecount(*)
return wrong value for information_schema.tables
/retest |
1 similar comment
/retest |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: hawkingrei, tangenta The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
[LGTM Timeline notifier]Timeline:
|
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: close #56987
Problem Summary:
InfoSchemaBaseExtractor
wrongly filter table names for the fast path introduced by #55574What changed and how does it work?
Introduce a new variable
extractLowerString
to dertermine whether to do case-insensitive comparisons for specific columns.Test case is not added in integration test because we don't want to write some hardcoded value. (ref #57306)
Check List
Tests
Side effects
Documentation
Release note
Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.