Hi Godfrey,
The formatting of your example seems to be broken.
Could you send them again please?
Regarding your points
> because watermark express can be a sub-column, just like `f1.q2` in above
example I give.
I would put the watermark information in the row of the top-level field and
indicate to which nested field the watermark refers.
Don't we have to solve the same issue for primary keys that are defined on
a nested field?
> A boolean flag can't represent such info. and I do know whether we will
support complex watermark expression involving multiple columns in the
future. such as: "WATERMARK FOR ts as ts + f1 + interval '1' second"
You are right, a simple binary flag is definitely not sufficient to display
the watermark information.
I would put the expression string into the field, i.e., "ts + f1 + interval
'1' second"
For me the most important point of why to not show the watermark as a row
in the table is that it is not field that can be queried but meta
information on an existing field.
For the user it is important to know that a certain field has a watermark.
Otherwise, certain queries cannot be correctly specified.
Also there might be support for multiple watermarks that are defined of
different fields at some point. Would those be printed in multiple rows?
Best,
Fabian
Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:25 Uhr schrieb godfrey he <godfre...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Fabian, Aljoscha
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Agree with you that we can deal with primary key as you mentioned.
> now, the type column has contained the nullability attribute, e.g. BIGINT
> NOT NULL.
> (I'm also ok that we use two columns to represent type just like mysql)
>
> >Why I treat `watermark` as a special row ?
> because watermark express can be a sub-column, just like `f1.q2` in above
> example I give.
> A boolean flag can't represent such info. and I do know whether we will
> support complex
> watermark expression involving multiple columns in the future. such as:
> "WATERMARK FOR ts as ts + f1 + interval '1' second"
>
> If we do not support complex watermark expression, we can add a watermark
> column.
>
> for example:
>
> create table MyTable (
>
> f0 BIGINT NOT NULL,
>
> f1 ROW<q1 STRING, q2 TIMESTAMP(3)>,
>
> f2 VARCHAR<256>,
>
> f3 AS f0 + 1,
>
> PRIMARY KEY (f0),
>
> UNIQUE (f3, f2),
>
> WATERMARK f1.q2 AS (`f1.q2` - INTERVAL '3' SECOND)
>
> ) with (...)
>
>
> name
>
> type
>
> key
>
> compute column
>
> watermark
>
> f0
>
> BIGINT NOT NULL
>
> PRI
>
> (NULL)
>
> f1
>
> ROW<`q1` STRING, `q2` TIMESTAMP(3)>
>
> UNQ
>
> (NULL)
>
> f1.q2 AS (`f1.q2` - INTERVAL '3' SECOND)
>
> f2
>
> VARCHAR<256>
>
> (NULL)
>
> NULL
>
> f3
>
> BIGINT NOT NULL
>
> UNQ
>
> f0 + 1
>
>
> or we add a column to represent nullability.
>
> name
>
> type
>
> null
>
> key
>
> compute column
>
> watermark
>
> f0
>
> BIGINT
>
> false
>
> PRI
>
> (NULL)
>
> f1
>
> ROW<`q1` STRING, `q2` TIMESTAMP(3)>
>
> true
>
> UNQ
>
> (NULL)
>
> f1.q2 AS (`f1.q2` - INTERVAL '3' SECOND)
>
> f2
>
> VARCHAR<256>
>
> true
>
> (NULL)
>
> NULL
>
> f3
>
> BIGINT
>
> false
>
> UNQ
>
> f0 + 1
>
>
> Personally, I like the second one. (we need do some changes on LogicalType
> to get type name without nullability)
>
>
> Best,
> Godfrey
>
>
> Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> 于2020年4月29日周三 下午5:47写道：
>
> > +1 I like the general idea of printing the results as a table.
> >
> > On the specifics I don't know enough but Fabians suggestions seems to
> > make sense to me.
> >
> > Aljoscha
> >
> > On 29.04.20 10:56, Fabian Hueske wrote:
> > > Hi Godfrey,
> > >
> > > Thanks for starting this discussion!
> > >
> > > In my mind, WATERMARK is a property (or constraint) of a field, just
> like
> > > PRIMARY KEY.
> > > Take this example from MySQL:
> > >
> > > mysql> CREATE TABLE people (id INT NOT NULL, name VARCHAR(128) NOT
> NULL,
> > > age INT, PRIMARY KEY (id));
> > > Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.06 sec)
> > >
> > > mysql> describe people;
> > > +-------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
> > > | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
> > > +-------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
> > > | id | int | NO | PRI | NULL | |
> > > | name | varchar(128) | NO | | NULL | |
> > > | age | int | YES | | NULL | |
> > > +-------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
> > > 3 rows in set (0.01 sec)
> > >
> > > Here, PRIMARY KEY is marked in the Key column of the id field.
> > > We could do the same for watermarks by adding a Watermark column.
> > >
> > > Best, Fabian
> > >
> > >
> > > Am Mi., 29. Apr. 2020 um 10:43 Uhr schrieb godfrey he <
> > godfre...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >> I would like to bring up a discussion about the result type of
> describe
> > >> statement,
> > >> which is introduced in FLIP-84[1].
> > >> In previous version, we define the result type of `describe` statement
> > is a
> > >> single column as following
> > >>
> > >> Statement
> > >>
> > >> Result Schema
> > >>
> > >> Result Value
> > >>
> > >> Result Kind
> > >>
> > >> Examples
> > >>
> > >> DESCRIBE xx
> > >>
> > >> field name: result
> > >>
> > >> field type: VARCHAR(n)
> > >>
> > >> (n is the max length of values)
> > >>
> > >> describe the detail of an object
> > >>
> > >> (single row)
> > >>
> > >> SUCCESS_WITH_CONTENT
> > >>
> > >> DESCRIBE table_name
> > >>
> > >> for "describe table_name", the result value is the `toString` value of
> > >> `TableSchema`, which is an unstructured data.
> > >> It's hard to for user to use this info.
> > >>
> > >> for example:
> > >>
> > >> TableSchema schema = TableSchema.builder()
> > >> .field("f0", DataTypes.BIGINT())
> > >> .field("f1", DataTypes.ROW(
> > >> DataTypes.FIELD("q1", DataTypes.STRING()),
> > >> DataTypes.FIELD("q2", DataTypes.TIMESTAMP(3))))
> > >> .field("f2", DataTypes.STRING())
> > >> .field("f3", DataTypes.BIGINT(), "f0 + 1")
> > >> .watermark("f1.q2", WATERMARK_EXPRESSION, WATERMARK_DATATYPE)
> > >> .build();
> > >>
> > >> its `toString` value is:
> > >> root
> > >> |-- f0: BIGINT
> > >> |-- f1: ROW<`q1` STRING, `q2` TIMESTAMP(3)>
> > >> |-- f2: STRING
> > >> |-- f3: BIGINT AS f0 + 1
> > >> |-- WATERMARK FOR f1.q2 AS now()
> > >>
> > >> For hive, MySQL, etc., the describe result is table form including
> field
> > >> names and field types.
> > >> which is more familiar with users.
> > >> TableSchema[2] has watermark expression and compute column, we should
> > also
> > >> put them into the table:
> > >> for compute column, it's a column level, we add a new column named
> > `expr`.
> > >> for watermark expression, it's a table level, we add a special row
> > named
> > >> `WATERMARK` to represent it.
> > >>
> > >> The result will look like about above example:
> > >>
> > >> name
> > >>
> > >> type
> > >>
> > >> expr
> > >>
> > >> f0
> > >>
> > >> BIGINT
> > >>
> > >> (NULL)
> > >>
> > >> f1
> > >>
> > >> ROW<`q1` STRING, `q2` TIMESTAMP(3)>
> > >>
> > >> (NULL)
> > >>
> > >> f2
> > >>
> > >> STRING
> > >>
> > >> NULL
> > >>
> > >> f3
> > >>
> > >> BIGINT
> > >>
> > >> f0 + 1
> > >>
> > >> WATERMARK
> > >>
> > >> (NULL)
> > >>
> > >> f1.q2 AS now()
> > >>
> > >> now there is a pr FLINK-17112 [3] to implement DESCRIBE statement.
> > >>
> > >> What do you think about this update?
> > >> Any feedback are welcome~
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Godfrey
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=134745878
> > >> [2]
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/master/flink-table/flink-table-common/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/table/api/TableSchema.java
> > >> [3] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/11892
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> godfrey he <godfre...@gmail.com> 于2020年4月6日周一 下午10:38写道：
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Timo,
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry for the late reply, and thanks for your correction.
> > >>> I missed DQL for job submission scenario.
> > >>> I'll fix the document right away.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>> Godfrey
> > >>>
> > >>> Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> 于2020年4月3日周五 下午9:53写道：
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Godfrey,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm sorry to jump in again but I still need to clarify some things
> > >>>> around TableResult.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The FLIP says:
> > >>>> "For DML, this method returns TableResult until the job is
> submitted.
> > >>>> For other statements, TableResult is returned until the execution is
> > >>>> finished."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thought we agreed on making every execution async? This also means
> > >>>> returning a TableResult for DQLs even though the execution is not
> done
> > >>>> yet. People need access to the JobClient also for batch jobs in
> order
> > to
> > >>>> cancel long lasting queries. If people want to wait for the
> completion
> > >>>> they can hook into JobClient or collect().
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can we rephrase this part to:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The FLIP says:
> > >>>> "For DML and DQL, this method returns TableResult once the job has
> > been
> > >>>> submitted. For DDL and DCL statements, TableResult is returned once
> > the
> > >>>> operation has finished."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>> Timo
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 02.04.20 05:27, godfrey he wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Aljoscha, Dawid, Timo,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks so much for the detailed explanation.
> > >>>>> Agree with you that the multiline story is not completed now, and
> we
> > >> can
> > >>>>> keep discussion.
> > >>>>> I will add current discussions and conclusions to the FLIP.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best,
> > >>>>> Godfrey
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> 于2020年4月1日周三 下午11:27写道：
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Godfrey,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> first of all, I agree with Dawid. The multiline story is not
> > >> completed
> > >>>>>> by this FLIP. It just verifies the big picture.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 1. "control the execution logic through the proposed method if
> they
> > >>>> know
> > >>>>>> what the statements are"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This is a good point that also Fabian raised in the linked google
> > >> doc.
> > >>>> I
> > >>>>>> could also imagine to return a more complicated POJO when calling
> > >>>>>> `executeMultiSql()`.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The POJO would include some `getSqlProperties()` such that a
> > platform
> > >>>>>> gets insights into the query before executing. We could also
> trigger
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> execution more explicitly instead of hiding it behind an iterator.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2. "there are some special commands introduced in SQL client"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> For platforms and SQL Client specific commands, we could offer a
> > hook
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>> the parser or a fallback parser in case the regular table
> > environment
> > >>>>>> parser cannot deal with the statement.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> However, all of that is future work and can be discussed in a
> > >> separate
> > >>>>>> FLIP.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 3. +1 for the `Iterator` instead of `Iterable`.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 4. "we should convert the checked exception to unchecked
> exception"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Yes, I meant using a runtime exception instead of a checked
> > >> exception.
> > >>>>>> There was no consensus on putting the exception into the
> > >> `TableResult`.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>> Timo
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 01.04.20 15:35, Dawid Wysakowicz wrote:
> > >>>>>>> When considering the multi-line support I think it is helpful to
> > >> start
> > >>>>>>> with a use case in mind. In my opinion consumers of this method
> > will
> > >>>> be:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 1. sql-client
> > >>>>>>> 2. third-part sql based platforms
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> @Godfrey As for the quit/source/... commands. I think those
> belong
> > >> to
> > >>>>>>> the responsibility of aforementioned. I think they should not be
> > >>>>>>> understandable by the TableEnvironment. What would quit on a
> > >>>>>>> TableEnvironment do? Moreover I think such commands should be
> > >> prefixed
> > >>>>>>> appropriately. I think it's a common practice to e.g. prefix
> those
> > >>>> with
> > >>>>>>> ! or : to say they are meta commands of the tool rather than a
> > >> query.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I also don't necessarily understand why platform users need to
> know
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>> kind of the query to use the proposed method. They should get the
> > >> type
> > >>>>>>> from the TableResult#ResultKind. If the ResultKind is SUCCESS, it
> > >> was
> > >>>> a
> > >>>>>>> DCL/DDL. If SUCCESS_WITH_CONTENT it was a DML/DQL. If that's not
> > >>>> enough
> > >>>>>>> we can enrich the TableResult with more explicit kind of query,
> but
> > >> so
> > >>>>>>> far I don't see such a need.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> @Kurt In those cases I would assume the developers want to
> present
> > >>>>>>> results of the queries anyway. Moreover I think it is safe to
> > assume
> > >>>>>>> they can adhere to such a contract that the results must be
> > >> iterated.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> For direct users of TableEnvironment/Table API this method does
> not
> > >>>> make
> > >>>>>>> much sense anyway, in my opinion. I think we can rather safely
> > >> assume
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>>>> this scenario they do not want to submit multiple queries at a
> > >> single
> > >>>>>> time.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Dawid
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 01/04/2020 15:07, Kurt Young wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> One comment to `executeMultilineSql`, I'm afraid sometimes user
> > >> might
> > >>>>>>>> forget to
> > >>>>>>>> iterate the returned iterators, e.g. user submits a bunch of
> DDLs
> > >> and
> > >>>>>>>> expect the
> > >>>>>>>> framework will execute them one by one. But it didn't.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>> Kurt
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:10 PM Aljoscha Krettek<
> > >> aljos...@apache.org>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Agreed to what Dawid and Timo said.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> To answer your question about multi line SQL: no, we don't
> think
> > >> we
> > >>>>>> need
> > >>>>>>>>> this in Flink 1.11, we only wanted to make sure that the
> > >> interfaces
> > >>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>> we now put in place will potentially allow this in the future.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>> Aljoscha
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 01.04.20 09:31, godfrey he wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo & Dawid,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks so much for the effort of `multiline statements
> > >> supporting`,
> > >>>>>>>>>> I have a few questions about this method:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. users can well control the execution logic through the
> > >> proposed
> > >>>>>> method
> > >>>>>>>>>> if they know what the statements are (a statement is a
> > DDL, a
> > >>>> DML
> > >>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>>> others).
> > >>>>>>>>>> but if a statement is from a file, that means users do not
> know
> > >>>> what
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> statements are,
> > >>>>>>>>>> the execution behavior is unclear.
> > >>>>>>>>>> As a platform user, I think this method is hard to use, unless
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>>> platform
> > >>>>>>>>>> defines
> > >>>>>>>>>> a set of rule about the statements order, such as: no select
> in
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>>> middle,
> > >>>>>>>>>> dml must be at tail of sql file (which may be the most case in
> > >>>> product
> > >>>>>>>>>> env).
> > >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise the platform must parse the sql first, then know
> what
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> statements are.
> > >>>>>>>>>> If do like that, the platform can handle all cases through
> > >>>>>> `executeSql`
> > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> `StatementSet`.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 2. SQL client can't also use `executeMultilineSql` to supports
> > >>>>>> multiline
> > >>>>>>>>>> statements,
> > >>>>>>>>>> because there are some special commands introduced in SQL
> > >>>> client,
> > >>>>>>>>>> such as `quit`, `source`, `load jar` (not exist now, but maybe
> > we
> > >>>> need
> > >>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>> command
> > >>>>>>>>>> to support dynamic table source and udf).
> > >>>>>>>>>> Does TableEnvironment also supports those commands?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 3. btw, we must have this feature in release-1.11? I find
> there
> > >> are
> > >>>>>> few
> > >>>>>>>>>> user cases
> > >>>>>>>>>> in the feedback document which behavior is unclear now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> regarding to "change the return value from `Iterable<Row` to
> > >>>>>>>>>> `Iterator<Row`",
> > >>>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more with this change. Just as Dawid
> mentioned
> > >>>>>>>>>> "The contract of the Iterable#iterator is that it returns a
> new
> > >>>>>> iterator
> > >>>>>>>>>> each time,
> > >>>>>>>>>> which effectively means we can iterate the results
> multiple
> > >>>>>> times.",
> > >>>>>>>>>> we does not provide iterate the results multiple times.
> > >>>>>>>>>> If we want do that, the client must buffer all results. but
> it's
> > >>>>>>>>> impossible
> > >>>>>>>>>> for streaming job.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>> Godfrey
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Dawid Wysakowicz<dwysakow...@apache.org> 于2020年4月1日周三
> > 上午3:14写道：
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Timo for the great summary! It covers (almost) all
> > the
> > >>>>>> topics.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Even though in the end we are not suggesting much changes to
> > the
> > >>>>>> current
> > >>>>>>>>>>> state of FLIP I think it is important to lay out all possible
> > >> use
> > >>>>>> cases
> > >>>>>>>>>>> so that we do not change the execution model every release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> There is one additional thing we discussed. Could we change
> the
> > >>>>>> result
> > >>>>>>>>>>> type of TableResult#collect to Iterator<Row>? Even though
> those
> > >>>>>>>>>>> interfaces do not differ much. I think Iterator better
> > describes
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the results might not be materialized on the client side, but
> > >> can
> > >>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> retrieved on a per record basis. The contract of the
> > >>>>>> Iterable#iterator
> > >>>>>>>>>>> is that it returns a new iterator each time, which
> effectively
> > >>>> means
> > >>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>> can iterate the results multiple times. Iterating the results
> > is
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>> possible when we don't retrieve all the results from the
> > cluster
> > >>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>> once.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we should also use Iterator for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> TableEnvironment#executeMultilineSql(String statements):
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Iterator<TableResult>.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dawid
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 31/03/2020 19:27, Timo Walther wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Godfrey,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Aljoscha, Dawid, Klou, and I had another discussion around
> > >>>> FLIP-84.
> > >>>>>> In
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> particular, we discussed how the current status of the FLIP
> > and
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> future requirements around multiline statements, async/sync,
> > >>>>>> collect()
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> fit together.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We also updated the FLIP-84 Feedback Summary document [1]
> with
> > >>>> some
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> use cases.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We believe that we found a good solution that also fits to
> > what
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the current FLIP. So no bigger changes necessary, which is
> > >> great!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Our findings were:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Async vs sync submission of Flink jobs:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Having a blocking `execute()` in DataStream API was rather a
> > >>>>>> mistake.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Instead all submissions should be async because this allows
> > >>>>>> supporting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> both modes if necessary. Thus, submitting all queries async
> > >>>> sounds
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> good to us. If users want to run a job sync, they can use
> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> JobClient and wait for completion (or collect() in case of
> > >> batch
> > >>>>>> jobs).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Multi-statement execution:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> For the multi-statement execution, we don't see a
> > >> contradication
> > >>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the async execution behavior. We imagine a method like:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> TableEnvironment#executeMultilineSql(String statements):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Iterable<TableResult>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Where the `Iterator#next()` method would trigger the next
> > >>>> statement
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> submission. This allows a caller to decide synchronously
> when
> > >> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> submit statements async to the cluster. Thus, a service such
> > as
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> SQL Client can handle the result of each statement
> > individually
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> process statement by statement sequentially.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. The role of TableResult and result retrieval in general
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> `TableResult` is similar to `JobClient`. Instead of
> returning
> > a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> `CompletableFuture` of something, it is a concrete util
> class
> > >>>> where
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> some methods have the behavior of completable future (e.g.
> > >>>>>> collect(),
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> print()) and some are already completed (getTableSchema(),
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> getResultKind()).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> `StatementSet#execute()` returns a single `TableResult`
> > because
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> order is undefined in a set and all statements have the same
> > >>>> schema.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Its `collect()` will return a row for each executed `INSERT
> > >>>> INTO` in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the order of statement definition.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> For simple `SELECT * FROM ...`, the query execution might
> > block
> > >>>>>> until
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> `collect()` is called to pull buffered rows from the job
> (from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> socket/REST API what ever we will use in the future). We can
> > >> say
> > >>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> a statement finished successfully, when the
> > >>>>>> `collect#Iterator#hasNext`
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> has returned false.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this summarizes our discussion @Dawid/Aljoscha/Klou?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It would be great if we can add these findings to the FLIP
> > >>>> before we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> start voting.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> One minor thing: some `execute()` methods still throw a
> > checked
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> exception; can we remove that from the FLIP? Also the above
> > >>>>>> mentioned
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> `Iterator#next()` would trigger an execution without
> throwing
> > a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> checked exception.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ueLjQWRPdLTFB_TReAyhseAX-1N3j4WYWD0F02Uau0E/edit#
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 31.03.20 06:28, godfrey he wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo & Jark
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your explanation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree with you that async execution should always be async,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and sync execution scenario can be covered by async
> > >> execution.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It helps provide an unified entry point for batch and
> > >> streaming.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we can also use sync execution for some testing.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I agree with you that we provide `executeSql` method
> and
> > >>>> it's
> > >>>>>>>>> async
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> method.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we want sync method in the future, we can add method
> named
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> `executeSqlSync`.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we've reached an agreement. I will update the
> > >> document,
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> start
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> voting process.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Godfrey
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark Wu<imj...@gmail.com> 于2020年3月31日周二 上午12:46写道：
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't follow the full discussion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I share the same concern with Timo that streaming
> > queries
> > >>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be async.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I can image it will cause a lot of confusion
> and
> > >>>>>> problems
> > >>>>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> users don't deeply keep the "sync" in mind (e.g. client
> > >> hangs).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, the streaming mode is still the majority use
> cases
> > >> of
> > >>>>>> Flink
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL. We should put the usability at a high priority.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 23:27, Timo Walther<
> > >> twal...@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Godfrey,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe I wasn't expressing my biggest concern enough in my
> > >> last
> > >>>>>> mail.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even in a singleline and sync execution, I think that
> > >>>> streaming
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should not block the execution. Otherwise it is not
> > possible
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>> call
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collect() or print() on them afterwards.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "there are too many things need to discuss for
> multiline":
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, I don't want to solve all of them right now. But
> what
> > >> I
> > >>>>>> know
> > >>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that our newly introduced methods should fit into a
> > >> multiline
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no big difference of calling `executeSql(A),
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executeSql(B)` and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing a multiline file `A;\nB;`.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the example that you mentioned can simply be
> > >> undefined
> > >>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, no catalog is modifying data but just
> metadata.
> > >>>> This
> > >>>>>> is a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate discussion.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "result of the second statement is indeterministic":
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure this is indeterministic. But this is the
> implementers
> > >>>> fault
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot forbid such pipelines.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about we always execute streaming queries async? It
> > >> would
> > >>>>>>>>> unblock
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executeSql() and multiline statements.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having a `executeSqlAsync()` is useful for batch.
> However,
> > I
> > >>>>>> don't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `sync/async` be the new batch/stream flag. The execution
> > >>>> behavior
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come from the query itself.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30.03.20 11:12, godfrey he wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree with you that streaming queries is our top
> priority,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think there are too many things need to discuss
> for
> > >>>>>> multiline
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. what's the behaivor of DDL and DML mixing for async
> > >>>>>> execution:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create table t1 xxx;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create table t2 xxx;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insert into t2 select * from t1 where xxx;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop table t1; // t1 may be a MySQL table, the data will
> > >>>> also be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deleted.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t1 is dropped when "insert" job is running.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. what's the behaivor of unified scenario for async
> > >>>> execution:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSERT INTO t1 SELECT * FROM s;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSERT INTO t2 SELECT * FROM s JOIN t1 EMIT STREAM;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The result of the second statement is indeterministic,
> > >>>> because
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement maybe is running.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to put a lot of effort to define the
> > >>>> behavior of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logically
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related queries.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this FLIP, I suggest we only handle single statement,
> > >> and
> > >>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce an async execute method
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is more important and more often used for users.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dor the sync methods (like `TableEnvironment.executeSql`
> > >> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `StatementSet.execute`),
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result will be returned until the job is finished.
> The
> > >>>>>>>>> following
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods will be introduced in this FLIP:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /**
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Asynchronously execute the given single
> > statement
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableEnvironment.executeSqlAsync(String statement):
> > >>>> TableResult
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /**
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Asynchronously execute the dml statements as a
> > >> batch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StatementSet.executeAsync(): TableResult
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface TableResult {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /**
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * return JobClient for DQL and DML in async
> > mode,
> > >>>> else
> > >>>>>>>>> return
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optional.empty
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Optional<JobClient> getJobClient();
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what do you think?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Godfrey
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo Walther<twal...@apache.org> 于2020年3月26日周四
> 下午9:15写道：
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Godfrey,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executing streaming queries must be our top priority
> > >> because
> > >>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what distinguishes Flink from competitors. If we change
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior, we should think about the other cases as well
> > to
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>> break
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API a third time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I fear that just having an async execute method will
> not
> > >> be
> > >>>>>> enough
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because users should be able to mix streaming and batch
> > >>>> queries
> > >>>>>>>>> in a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unified scenario.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I remember it correctly, we had some discussions in
> > the
> > >>>> past
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what decides about the execution mode of a query.
> > >>>> Currently, we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like to let the query decide, not derive it from the
> > >>>> sources.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I could image a multiline pipeline as:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USE CATALOG 'mycat';
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSERT INTO t1 SELECT * FROM s;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INSERT INTO t2 SELECT * FROM s JOIN t1 EMIT STREAM;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For executeMultilineSql():
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sync because regular SQL
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sync because regular Batch SQL
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> async because Streaming SQL
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For executeAsyncMultilineSql():
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> async because everything should be async
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> async because everything should be async
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> async because everything should be async
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we should not start for
> executeAsyncMultilineSql():
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sync because DDL
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> async because everything should be async
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> async because everything should be async
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you thoughts here?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26.03.20 12:50, godfrey he wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you that streaming queries mostly need
> > async
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, our original plan is only introducing sync
> > >>>> methods in
> > >>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and async methods (like "executeSqlAsync") will be
> > >>>> introduced
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is mentioned in the appendix.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the async methods also need to be considered in
> > >> this
> > >>>>>> FLIP.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think sync methods is also useful for streaming
> which
> > >>>> can be
> > >>>>>>>>> used
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bounded source.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should check whether all sources are bounded
> in
> > >>>> sync
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if we block for streaming queries, we could
> never
> > >>>>>> support
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiline files. Because the first INSERT INTO would
> > >> block
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> further
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with you, we need async method to submit
> multiline
> > >>>>>> files,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and files should be limited that the DQL and DML
> should
> > >> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end for streaming.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Godfrey
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo Walther<twal...@apache.org> 于2020年3月26日周四
> > >> 下午4:29写道：
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Godfrey,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having control over the job after submission is a
> > >>>> requirement
> > >>>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requested frequently (some examples are [1], [2]).
> > Users
> > >>>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get insights about the running or completed job.
> > >> Including
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobId,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobGraph etc., the JobClient summarizes these
> > >> properties.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is good to have a discussion about
> > >>>>>> synchronous/asynchronous
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission now to have a complete execution picture.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought we submit streaming queries mostly async
> and
> > >>>> just
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful submission. If we block for streaming
> > >> queries,
> > >>>> how
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collect() or print() results?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if we block for streaming queries, we could
> never
> > >>>>>> support
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiline files. Because the first INSERT INTO would
> > >> block
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> further
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we decide to block entirely on streaming queries,
> we
> > >>>> need
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> async
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution methods in the design already. However, I
> > >> would
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather go
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-blocking streaming queries. Also with the `EMIT
> > >>>> STREAM`
> > >>>>>> key
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind that we might add to SQL statements soon.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-16761
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-12214
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.03.20 16:30, godfrey he wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the updating.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to "multiline statement support", I'm also
> > >> fine
> > >>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TableEnvironment.executeSql()` only supports single
> > >> line
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can support multiline statement later (needs more
> > >>>> discussion
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to "StatementSet.explian()", I don't have
> > >>>> strong
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to "TableResult.getJobClient()", I think
> > it's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason is: first, many statements (e.g. DDL, show
> xx,
> > >> use
> > >>>>>> xx)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submit a Flink job. second,
> > >>>> `TableEnvironment.executeSql()`
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `StatementSet.execute()` are synchronous method,
> > >>>>>> `TableResult`
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned only after the job is finished or failed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to "whether StatementSet.execute() needs
> to
> > >>>> throw
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception", I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should choose a unified way to tell whether
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful. If `TableResult` contains ERROR kind
> > >>>>>> (non-runtime
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception),
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users need to not only check the result but also
> catch
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception in their code. or `StatementSet.execute()`
> > >> does
> > >>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception (including runtime exception), all
> exception
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result. I prefer "StatementSet.execute() needs to
> > >> throw
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception".
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cc
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Jark
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wu<imj...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will update the agreed parts to the document
> first.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Godfrey
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo Walther<twal...@apache.org> 于2020年3月25日周三
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 下午6:51写道：
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Godfrey,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for starting the discussion on the mailing
> > >> list.
> > >>>> And
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sorry
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the late reply to FLIP-84. I have updated the
> > >> Google
> > >>>>>> doc
> > >>>>>>>>> one
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to incorporate the offline discussions.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From Dawid's and my view, it is fine to
> > >>>> postpone the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiline
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a separate method. This can be future work even
> > >>>> though
> > >>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it rather soon.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there are no objections, I suggest to update the
> > >>>> FLIP-84
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have another voting process.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.03.20 11:17, godfrey he wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi community,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo, Fabian and Dawid have some feedbacks about
> > >>>>>> FLIP-84[1].
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedbacks
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are all about new introduced methods. We had a
> > >>>> discussion
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most of feedbacks have been agreed upon. Here is
> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. about proposed methods in `TableEnvironment`:*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the original proposed methods:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableEnvironment.createDmlBatch(): DmlBatch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableEnvironment.executeStatement(String
> statement):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ResultTable
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new proposed methods:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // we should not use abbreviations in the API, and
> > >> the
> > >>>>>> term
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Batch"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily confused with batch/streaming processing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableEnvironment.createStatementSet():
> StatementSet
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // every method that takes SQL should have `Sql`
> in
> > >> its
> > >>>>>> name
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // supports multiline statement ???
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableEnvironment.executeSql(String statement):
> > >>>> TableResult
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // new methods. supports explaining DQL and DML
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableEnvironment.explainSql(String statement,
> > >>>>>>>>> ExplainDetail...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *2. about proposed related classes:*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the original proposed classes:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface DmlBatch {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void addInsert(String insert);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void addInsert(String targetPath,
> Table
> > >>>> table);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ResultTable execute() throws
> Exception
> > ;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String explain(boolean extended);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface ResultTable {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableSchema getResultSchema();
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iterable<Row> getResultRows();
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new proposed classes:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface StatementSet {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // every method that takes SQL should
> > >> have
> > >>>>>> `Sql` in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // return StatementSet instance for
> > >> fluent
> > >>>>>>>>> programming
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addInsertSql(String statement):
> > >>>> StatementSet
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // return StatementSet instance for
> > >> fluent
> > >>>>>>>>> programming
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addInsert(String tablePath, Table
> > table):
> > >>>>>>>>> StatementSet
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // new method. support overwrite mode
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addInsert(String tablePath, Table
> > table,
> > >>>>>> boolean
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwrite):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StatementSet
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain(): String
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // new method. supports adding more
> > >> details
> > >>>>>> for the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain(ExplainDetail...
> extraDetails):
> > >>>> String
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // throw exception ???
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execute(): TableResult
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface TableResult {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getTableSchema(): TableSchema
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // avoid custom parsing of an "OK"
> row
> > in
> > >>>>>>>>> programming
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getResultKind(): ResultKind
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // instead of `get` make it explicit
> > that
> > >>>> this
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggering
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an expensive operation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collect(): Iterable<Row>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // for fluent programming
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> print(): Unit
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enum ResultKind {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SUCCESS, // for DDL, DCL and
> statements
> > >>>> with a
> > >>>>>>>>> simple
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "OK"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SUCCESS_WITH_CONTENT, // rows with
> > >>>> important
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (DML, DQL)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *3. new proposed methods in `Table`*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `Table.insertInto()` will be deprecated, and the
> > >>>> following
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table.executeInsert(String tablePath): TableResult
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table.executeInsert(String tablePath, boolean
> > >>>> overwrite):
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TableResult
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table.explain(ExplainDetail... details): String
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table.execute(): TableResult
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two issues need further discussion, one
> is
> > >>>>>> whether
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TableEnvironment.executeSql(String statement):
> > >>>>>> TableResult`
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support multiline statement (or whether
> > >>>> `TableEnvironment`
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiline statement), and another one is whether
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `StatementSet.execute()`
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to throw exception.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please refer to the feedback document [2] for the
> > >>>> details.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestions are warmly welcomed!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> https://wiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=134745878
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ueLjQWRPdLTFB_TReAyhseAX-1N3j4WYWD0F02Uau0E/edit
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Godfrey
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
