Rename is_ordered_set_aggregate to supports_within_group_clause for UDAFs
#18397
Conversation
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
github-actions
bot
added
documentation
alamb
approved these changes
Oct 31, 2025
| pub fn is_ordered_set_aggregate(&self) -> bool { | ||
| self.inner.is_ordered_set_aggregate() | ||
| /// See [`AggregateUDFImpl::supports_within_group_clause`] for more details. | ||
| pub fn supports_within_group_clause(&self) -> bool { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is a breaking API change, as you have pointed out in the PR description and upgrade guide
Contributor
|
Thank you @Jefffrey |
xudong963
approved these changes
Nov 1, 2025
tobixdev
pushed a commit
to tobixdev/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 2, 2025
…or UDAFs (apache#18397) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Closes apache#18280 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> `AggregateUDFImpl::is_ordered_set_aggregate` is confusingly named as all it does currently is permit usage of `WITHIN GROUP` SQL syntax. I don't think it would have any functionality in the future beyond this. Also makes it easier if in future we decide to implement [hypothetical-set aggregate functions](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/functions-aggregate.html#FUNCTIONS-HYPOTHETICAL-TABLE) too, since we wouldn't need a `is_hypothetical_set_aggregate` variation either. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Rename `AggregateUDFImpl::is_ordered_set_aggregate` to `AggregateUDFImpl::supports_within_group_clause`. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Existing tests. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> Yes. Added section to upgrade guide. <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
codetyri0n
pushed a commit
to codetyri0n/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2025
…or UDAFs (apache#18397) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Closes apache#18280 ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> `AggregateUDFImpl::is_ordered_set_aggregate` is confusingly named as all it does currently is permit usage of `WITHIN GROUP` SQL syntax. I don't think it would have any functionality in the future beyond this. Also makes it easier if in future we decide to implement [hypothetical-set aggregate functions](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/functions-aggregate.html#FUNCTIONS-HYPOTHETICAL-TABLE) too, since we wouldn't need a `is_hypothetical_set_aggregate` variation either. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Rename `AggregateUDFImpl::is_ordered_set_aggregate` to `AggregateUDFImpl::supports_within_group_clause`. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> Existing tests. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> Yes. Added section to upgrade guide. <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. -->
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?
AggregateUDFImpl::is_ordered_set_aggregatetoAggregateUDFImpl::supports_within_group_clause#18280Rationale for this change
AggregateUDFImpl::is_ordered_set_aggregateis confusingly named as all it does currently is permit usage ofWITHIN GROUPSQL syntax. I don't think it would have any functionality in the future beyond this. Also makes it easier if in future we decide to implement hypothetical-set aggregate functions too, since we wouldn't need ais_hypothetical_set_aggregatevariation either.What changes are included in this PR?
Rename
AggregateUDFImpl::is_ordered_set_aggregatetoAggregateUDFImpl::supports_within_group_clause.Are these changes tested?
Existing tests.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes. Added section to upgrade guide.