Hi everyone. Sorry for the late response.
For `execution.runtime-mode`, I think it's much better than `table.execution.mode`. Thanks for Timo's suggestions! For `SHOW CREATE TABLE`, I'm +1 with Jark's comments. We should clarify the usage of the SHOW CREATE TABLE statements. It should be allowed to specify the table that is fully qualified and only works for the table that is created by the sql statements. I have updated the FLIP with suggestions. It seems we have reached a consensus, I'd like to start a formal vote for the FLIP. Please vote +1 to approve the FLIP, or -1 with a comment. Best, Shengkai Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> 于2021年2月15日周一 下午10:50写道： > Hi Ingo, > > 1) I think you are right, the table path should be fully-qualified. > > 2) I think this is also a good point. The SHOW CREATE TABLE > only aims to print DDL for the tables registered using SQL CREATE TABLE > DDL. > If a table is registered using Table API, e.g. > `StreamTableEnvironment#createTemporaryView(String, DataStream)`, > currently it's not possible to print DDL for such tables. > I think we should point it out in the FLIP. > > Best, > Jark > > > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 21:33, Ingo Bürk <i...@ververica.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I have a couple questions about the SHOW CREATE TABLE statement. > > > > 1) Contrary to the example in the FLIP I think the returned DDL should > > always have the table identifier fully-qualified. Otherwise the DDL > depends > > on the current context (catalog/database), which could be surprising, > > especially since "the same" table can behave differently if created in > > different catalogs. > > 2) How should this handle tables which cannot be fully characterized by > > properties only? I don't know if there's an example for this yet, but > > hypothetically this is not currently a requirement, right? This isn't as > > much of a problem if this syntax is SQL-client-specific, but if it's > > general Flink SQL syntax we should consider this (one way or another). > > > > > > Regards > > Ingo > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:53 PM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Shengkai, > > > > > > thanks for updating the FLIP. > > > > > > I have one last comment for the option `table.execution.mode`. Should > we > > > already use the global Flink option `execution.runtime-mode` instead? > > > > > > We are using Flink's options where possible (e.g. `pipeline.name` and > > > `parallism.default`) why not also for batch/streaming mode? > > > > > > The description of the option matches to the Blink planner behavior: > > > > > > ``` > > > Among other things, this controls task scheduling, network shuffle > > > behavior, and time semantics. > > > ``` > > > > > > Regards, > > > Timo > > > > > > On 10.02.21 06:30, Shengkai Fang wrote: > > > > Hi, guys. > > > > > > > > I have updated the FLIP. It seems we have reached agreement. Maybe > we > > > can > > > > start the vote soon. If anyone has other questions, please leave your > > > > comments. > > > > > > > > Best， > > > > Shengkai > > > > > > > > Rui Li <lirui.fu...@gmail.com>于2021年2月9日 周二下午7:52写道： > > > > > > > >> Hi guys, > > > >> > > > >> The conclusion sounds good to me. > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:39 PM Shengkai Fang <fskm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi, Timo, Jark. > > > >>> > > > >>> I am fine with the new option name. > > > >>> > > > >>> Best, > > > >>> Shengkai > > > >>> > > > >>> Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org>于2021年2月9日 周二下午5:35写道： > > > >>> > > > >>>> Yes, `TableEnvironment#executeMultiSql()` can be future work. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> @Rui, Shengkai: Are you also fine with this conclusion? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > >>>> Timo > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 09.02.21 10:14, Jark Wu wrote: > > > >>>>> 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. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Best regards! > > > >> Rui Li > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
