-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 636
feat: add some DELTA keywords #2018
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -491,6 +491,7 @@ define_keywords!( | |
| INTERSECTION, | ||
| INTERVAL, | ||
| INTO, | ||
| INVENTORY, | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can we add test cases to demonstrate the added functionality? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Certainly @iffyio. I had been looking through the code for existing tests, but to no avail. So unsure if I should add some cases to the tokenizer tests or in the parser module? Or is there a more obvious place I am missing? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We can probably extend this test to include new scenarios? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @iffyio - your hint got me to dive a bit deeper into the codebase. Unfortunately the Redhsift and Databricks VACUUM commands are quite different. That said, would you accept a PR where I extend this a bit, add a custom statement parser option the databricks dialect and a There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah yeah it should possible to support databricks' variant of the vacuum command. But we tend to not have dialect specific statements so that it'll likely need to be part of the existing |
||
| INVOKER, | ||
| IO, | ||
| IS, | ||
|
|
@@ -528,6 +529,7 @@ define_keywords!( | |
| LIST, | ||
| LISTEN, | ||
| LISTING, | ||
| LITE, | ||
| LN, | ||
| LOAD, | ||
| LOCAL, | ||
|
|
@@ -855,6 +857,7 @@ define_keywords!( | |
| SETERROR, | ||
| SETS, | ||
| SETTINGS, | ||
| SHALLOW, | ||
| SHARE, | ||
| SHARED, | ||
| SHARING, | ||
|
|
||