Skip to content

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+3 −0
Open

feat: add some DELTA keywords #2018

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
92e5fea
feat: add LITE keyword
roeap Aug 29, 2025
9f6a7a7
feat: add SHALLOW keyword
roeap Aug 29, 2025
5a42df2
feat: add INVENTORY keyword
roeap Aug 29, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions src/keywords.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -491,6 +491,7 @@ define_keywords!(
INTERSECTION,
INTERVAL,
INTO,
INVENTORY,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we add test cases to demonstrate the added functionality?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The 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?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We can probably extend this test to include new scenarios?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The 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 VacuumDatabricks Statement variant?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The 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 Statement::Vacuum variant in this case, being extended to support the new options

INVOKER,
IO,
IS,
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -528,6 +529,7 @@ define_keywords!(
LIST,
LISTEN,
LISTING,
LITE,
LN,
LOAD,
LOCAL,
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -855,6 +857,7 @@ define_keywords!(
SETERROR,
SETS,
SETTINGS,
SHALLOW,
SHARE,
SHARED,
SHARING,
Expand Down