[SPARK-55145][SS] Support Avro for timestamp based RocksDB state key encoders#54844
Open
HeartSaVioR wants to merge 2 commits intoapache:masterfrom
Open
[SPARK-55145][SS] Support Avro for timestamp based RocksDB state key encoders#54844HeartSaVioR wants to merge 2 commits intoapache:masterfrom
HeartSaVioR wants to merge 2 commits intoapache:masterfrom
Conversation
HeartSaVioR
force-pushed
the
SPARK-55145
branch
from
bda7121 to
556cf92
Compare
HeartSaVioR
changed the title
HeartSaVioR
force-pushed
the
SPARK-55145
branch
from
556cf92 to
31eaf13
Compare
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 proposes to support Avro for timestamp key encoders, TimestampAsPrefixKeyStateEncoder(Spec) and TimestampAsPostfixKeyStateEncoder(Spec).
This PR does not cover the scope of enabling Avro for stream-stream join operators; this would trigger more scope than expected e.g. schema evolution and warrant separate effort.
Why are the changes needed?
To resolve TODO we left in #53911
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Existing UTs expanded from UnsafeRow only to UnsafeRow and Avro.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
Generated-by: Claude 4.6 opus