feat(rust/sedona-expr): Pass ConfigOptions into UDFs#557
feat(rust/sedona-expr): Pass ConfigOptions into UDFs#557Kontinuation merged 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom
Conversation
Kontinuation
changed the title
| &args, | ||
| return_type, | ||
| num_rows as usize, | ||
| None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We do not support passing ConfigOptions to FFI UDFs yet (this also won't be easy). I wonder should we simply pass in a default ConfigOptions here. This will simplify the type of config_options parameter to be &ConfigOptions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's OK that functions using the FFI extension mechanism don't have access to options. There are probably only a few functions where it makes sense to use this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the Option<> but if there is no cost to constructing default options that is OK too. If a Sedona UDF is specifically making use of options it's probably better for it to error in the unlikely event it is FFIed by accident?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that functions relying on options should fail instead of silently using default options. Let's keep using Option<> then.
| &args, | ||
| return_type, | ||
| num_rows as usize, | ||
| None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's OK that functions using the FFI extension mechanism don't have access to options. There are probably only a few functions where it makes sense to use this.
2 participants
Closes #248
This will allow altering the behavior of UDFs. For instance, allowing the size of per-thread proj cache used by ST_Transform to be configured before invoking any CRS transformation functions.