Florian Eiden

@dbeatty10 do you know what can be done here? @dluftspring you can still mark the PR ready-for-review without tests, we'll add them during review (but I know it feels better...

Sorry @Goodkat, I know this is frustrating. I'm looking at our indecision as a symptom of our lack of confidence in the current approach. We're not positive the changes you...

Hi @roycefp, since we can't reproduce, I will close this now. Please comment below if needed and we will re-open.

Re-opening! @dbeatty10 do you still have context, or do you want me to take over?

So I will ask Mike to take a look at it, but he's super busy right now. @brebertus21 you can follow up on the conversation in the issue Doug linked...

Yes @roycefp - the dbt-utils issue is the one to follow. Sorry about the delay >

I can reproduce, but I don't think that's a bug. BigQuery doesn't support schema mutations on record fields. From a user standpoint it looks like the field is of type...

@HansalShah007 the latest is my comment just above :) The core issue is that BigQuery doesn't accept changes in nested fields. We won't be able to add a workaround in...

Re-opening that one following @elyobo's PR (#371). Trying to sum-up the entire situation before diving in: - **Adapter** : BigQuery - **Materialization** : Incremental - **Strategy** : `insert_overwrite` | ~~`merge`~~...

Ok so we are solving for 2 things here: 1. Overall performance, getting the exact list of partitions to be processed seems like a no brainer, but it's already the...