>> AFAIK state schema evolution should work both for native and canonical >> savepoints.
Schema evolution does technically work for both formats, it happens after the code paths have been unified, but the community has up until this point considered that an unsupported feature. From my perspective making this supported could be as simple as adding test coverage but that's an active decision we'd need to make. On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:43 AM Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Konstantin, > > > In this context: will the native format support state schema evolution? > If > > not, I am not sure, we can let the format default to native. > > AFAIK state schema evolution should work both for native and canonical > savepoints. > > Regarding what is/will be supported we will document as part of this > FLIP-203. But it's not as simple as just the difference between native and > canonical formats. > > Best, Piotrek > > pon., 20 gru 2021 o 14:28 Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> napisał(a): > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > Thanks a lot for starting the discussion. Big +1. > > > > In my understanding, this FLIP introduces the snapshot format as a > *really* > > user facing concept. IMO it is important that we document > > > > a) that it is not longer the checkpoint/savepoint characteristics that > > determines the kind of changes that a snapshots allows (user code, state > > schema evolution, topology changes), but now this becomes a property of > the > > format regardless of whether this is a snapshots or a checkpoint > > b) the exact changes that each format allows (code, state schema, > topology, > > state backend, max parallelism) > > > > In this context: will the native format support state schema evolution? > If > > not, I am not sure, we can let the format default to native. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:09 PM Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion about a previously announced follow > up > > > of the FLIP-193 [1], namely allowing savepoints to be in native format > > and > > > incremental. The changes do not seem invasive. The full proposal is > > > written down as FLIP-203: Incremental savepoints [2]. Please take a > look, > > > and let me know what you think. > > > > > > Best, > > > Piotrek > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-193%3A+Snapshots+ownership > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-203%3A+Incremental+savepoints#FLIP203:Incrementalsavepoints-Semantic > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Konstantin Knauf > > > > https://twitter.com/snntrable > > > > https://github.com/knaufk > > >
