I'm fine with `table.multi-dml-sync`. My previous concern about "multi" is that DML in CLI looks like single statement. But we can treat CLI as a multi-line accepting statements from opening to closing. Thus, I'm fine with `table.multi-dml-sync`.
So the conclusion is `table.multi-dml-sync` (false by default), and we will support this config in SQL CLI first, will support it in TableEnvironment#executeMultiSql() in the future, right? Best, Jark On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 16:37, Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I understand Rui's concerns. `table.dml-sync` should not apply to > regular `executeSql`. Actually, this option makes only sense when > executing multi statements. Once we have a > `TableEnvironment.executeMultiSql()` this config could be considered. > > Maybe we can find a better generic name? Other platforms will also need > to have this config option, which is why I would like to avoid a SQL > Client specific option. Otherwise every platform has to come up with > this important config option separately. > > Maybe `table.multi-dml-sync` `table.multi-stmt-sync`? Or other opinions? > > Regards, > Timo > > On 09.02.21 08:50, Shengkai Fang wrote: > > Hi, all. > > > > I think it may cause user confused. The main problem is we have no means > > to detect the conflict configuration, e.g. users set the option true and > > use `TableResult#await` together. > > > > Best, > > Shengkai. > > > >
