Hi Kurt,
we can also shorten it to `table.dml-sync` if that would help. Then it
would confuse users that do a regular `.executeSql("INSERT INTO")` in a
notebook session.
In any case users will need to learn the semantics of this option.
`table.multi-dml-sync` should be described as "If a you are in a multi
statement environment, execute DMLs synchrounous.". I don't have a
strong opinion on shortening it to `table.dml-sync`.
Just to clarify the implementation: The option should be handled by the
SQL Client only, but the name can be shared accross platforms.
Regards,
Timo
On 23.02.21 09:54, Kurt Young wrote:
Sorry for the late reply, but I'm confused by `table.multi-dml-sync`.
IIUC this config will take effect with 2 use cases:
1. SQL client, either interactive mode or executing multiple statements via
-f. In most cases,
there will be only one INSERT INTO statement but we are controlling the
sync/async behavior
with "*multi-dml*-sync". I think this will confuse a lot of users. Besides,
2. TableEnvironment#executeMultiSql(), but this is future work, we are also
not sure if we will
really introduce this in the future.
I would prefer to introduce this option for only sql client. For platforms
Timo mentioned which
need to control such behavior, I think it's easy and flexible to introduce
one on their own.
Best,
Kurt
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 10:23 AM Shengkai Fang <fskm...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
