Allow DROP VIEW and DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW#21
Merged
Conversation
|
Let's make a new release to |
ageiduschek
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
ageiduschek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Congrats on your first emulator PR!! Thanks for taking this on 🙂
Comment on lines
+1
to
+5
| """ | ||
| This example creates a dataset, table, and view, | ||
| shows that the output of the table and view are expected, | ||
| and removes the dataset, table, and view. | ||
| """ |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The
DeleteTablesfunction was only dropping tables, despite the rest of the project being aware of all BigQuery table types. This PR moves those table types tointernal/typesto be used more easily, and then checks for the table type when dropping a table.@ohaibbq I had made a different candidate branch
candidate/rb20240815, but saw that our fork of this repo and go-zetasqlite have some mismatch with goccy's when I rebased it (both ours and his have quite a few changes). Do you think it would be easier to get our forks in sync before getting this change in? (I'm not sure what the upstream response time is).This change would unblock a few issues for us, so I'd be happy to make a new release for us with this change and then spend some time contributing to syncing with goccy when I am back from PTO.