The `table.` prefix is meant to be a general option in the table
ecosystem. Not necessarily attached to Table API or SQL Client. That's
why SQL Client is also located in the `flink-table` module.
My main concern is the SQL script portability. Declaring the sync/async
behavior will happen in many SQL scripts. And users should be easily
switch from SQL Client to some commercial product without the need of
changing the script again.
Sure, we can change from `sql-client.dml-sync` to `table.dml-sync` later
but that would mean introducing future confusion. An app name (what
`sql-client` kind of is) should not be part of a config option key if
other apps will need the same kind of option.
Regards,
Timo
On 24.02.21 08:59, Jark Wu wrote:
From my point of view, I also prefer "sql-client.dml-sync",
because the behavior of this configuration is very clear.
Even if we introduce a new config in the future, e.g. `table.dml-sync`,
we can also deprecate the sql-client one.
Introducing a "table." configuration without any implementation
will confuse users a lot, as they expect it should take effect on
the Table API.
If we want to introduce an unified "table.dml-sync" option, I prefer
it should be implemented on Table API and affect all the DMLs on
Table API (`tEnv.executeSql`, `Table.executeInsert`, `StatementSet`),
as I have mentioned before [1].
It would be very straightforward that it affects all the DMLs on SQL CLI
and
TableEnvironment (including `executeSql`, `StatementSet`,
`Table#executeInsert`, etc.).
This can also make SQL CLI easy to support this configuration by passing
through to the TableEnv.
Best,
Jark
[1]:
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-163-SQL-Client-Improvements-tp48354p48665.html
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 10:39, Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com> wrote:
If we all agree the option should only be handled by sql client, then why
don't we
just call it `sql-client.dml-sync`? As you said, calling it
`table.dml-sync` but has no
affection in `TableEnv.executeSql("INSERT INTO")` will also cause a big
confusion for
users.
The only concern I saw is if we introduce
"TableEnvironment.executeMultiSql()" in the
future, how do we control the synchronization between statements? TBH I
don't really
see a strong requirement for such interfaces. Right now, we have a pretty
clear semantic
of `TableEnv.executeSql`, and it's very convenient for users if they want
to execute multiple
sql statements. They can simulate either synced or async execution with
this building block.
This will introduce slight overhead for users, but compared to the
confusion we might
cause if we introduce such a method of our own, I think it's better to wait
for some more
feedback.
Best,
Kurt
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:45 PM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote:
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
