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

SQL: Skip the nested and object field types in case of an ODBC request #37948

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 30, 2019

Conversation

astefan
Copy link
Contributor

@astefan astefan commented Jan 29, 2019

This PR adds a change to how SYS COLUMNS behaves in case of a request coming from an ODBC client, by not returning the root nested or object fields.

Fixes #37801.

@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/es-search

Copy link
Member

@costin costin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

));
// skip the nested and object types only for ODBC
// https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/issues/35376
boolean isObjectType = type == NESTED || type == OBJECT;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's already a method doing that on DataType - isPrimitive.

@astefan
Copy link
Contributor Author

astefan commented Jan 29, 2019

@elasticmachine run elasticsearch-ci/default-distro

@astefan
Copy link
Contributor Author

astefan commented Jan 29, 2019

@elasticmachine run elasticsearch-ci/2

@astefan
Copy link
Contributor Author

astefan commented Jan 29, 2019

@elasticmachine run elasticsearch-ci/1

Copy link
Contributor

@matriv matriv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@astefan
Copy link
Contributor Author

astefan commented Jan 29, 2019

@elasticmachine run elasticsearch-ci/2

2 similar comments
@astefan
Copy link
Contributor Author

astefan commented Jan 29, 2019

@elasticmachine run elasticsearch-ci/2

@astefan
Copy link
Contributor Author

astefan commented Jan 29, 2019

@elasticmachine run elasticsearch-ci/2

@astefan astefan merged commit 908c8de into elastic:master Jan 30, 2019
@costin
Copy link
Member

costin commented Jan 30, 2019

@bpintea ^^ - should we backport this one to 6.6 and maybe 6.5 as well?

astefan added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2019
jasontedor added a commit to jasontedor/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2019
* master: (29 commits)
  Fix limit on retaining sequence number (elastic#37992)
  Docs test fix, wait for shards active.
  Revert "Revert "Documented default values for index follow request parameters. (elastic#37917)""
  Revert "Documented default values for index follow request parameters. (elastic#37917)"
  Ensure date parsing BWC compatibility (elastic#37929)
  SQL: Skip the nested and object field types in case of an ODBC request (elastic#37948)
  Use mappings to format doc-value fields by default. (elastic#30831)
  Give precedence to index creation when mixing typed templates with typeless index creation and vice-versa. (elastic#37871)
  Add classifier to tar.gz in docker compose (elastic#38011)
  Documented default values for index follow request parameters. (elastic#37917)
  Fix fetch source option in expand search phase (elastic#37908)
  Restore a noop _all metadata field for 6x indices (elastic#37808)
  Added ccr to xpack usage infrastructure (elastic#37256)
  Fix exit code for Security CLI tools  (elastic#37956)
  Streamline S3 Repository- and Client-Settings (elastic#37393)
  Add version 6.6.1 (elastic#37975)
  Ensure task metadata not null in follow test (elastic#37993)
  Docs fix - missing callout
  Types removal - deprecate include_type_name with index templates (elastic#37484)
  Handle completion suggestion without contexts
  ...
@bpintea
Copy link
Contributor

bpintea commented Jan 30, 2019

@costin yes, 6.6 makes sense. Debatable if 6.5 is worth it.

astefan added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2019
@astefan astefan added the v6.6.1 label Jan 31, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants