Revert "[Minor]: unify ANY/ALL planning and align ANY NULL semantics with PG (#21743)"#22345
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This was referenced May 18, 2026
40 tasks
github-merge-queue
Bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks
…with PG (apache#21743)" This reverts commit 4bff17e.
adriangb
force-pushed
the
alamb/revert_any_pruning
branch
from
5f6e5b8 to
d3064ea
Compare
Contributor
|
Thanks for this, sorry didn't get around to reviewing this 👍 |
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
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Which issue does this PR close?
= ANY([literals])#22073Rationale for this change
As @cetra3 describes on #22073, in #21743 @berkaysynnada made a seemingly small change to align to postgres semantics that had much larger consequences
I think many users (for example @cetra3) will treat this change as a regression, and thus I think this issue would block the next datafusion release
54.0.0(Apr 2026 / May 2026) #21080We tried an alternate fix but it appears to also raise some subtle questions from @Jefffrey
Thus I think it is safest to revert the initial change and work out the better longer term fix before releasing
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?