+1 (non-binding)
Thanks Piotr.
--
Best regards,
Anton Kalashnikov
26.01.2022 11:21, David Anderson пишет:
+1 (non-binding)
I'm pleased to see this significant improvement coming along, as well as
the effort made in the FLIP to document what is and isn't supported (and
where ??? remain).
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 10:58 AM Yu Li<car...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 (binding)
Thanks for driving this Piotr! Just one more (belated) suggestion: in the
"Checkpoint vs savepoint guarantees" section, there are still question
marks scattered in the table, and I suggest putting all TODO works into the
"Limitations" section, or adding a "Future Work" section, for easier later
tracking.
Best Regards,
Yu
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 18:48, Konstantin Knauf<kna...@apache.org> wrote:
Thanks, Piotr. Proposal looks good.
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:20 AM David Morávek<d...@apache.org> wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
Best,
D.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 10:54 AM Dawid Wysakowicz <
dwysakow...@apache.org>
wrote:
+1 (binding)
Best,
Dawid
On 24/01/2022 09:56, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
Hi,
As there seems to be no further questions about the FLIP-203 [1] I
would
propose to start a voting thread for it.
For me there are still two unanswered questions, whether we want to
support
schema evolution and State Processor API with native format
snapshots
or
not. But I would propose to tackle them as follow ups, since those
are
pre-existing issues of the native format checkpoints, and could be
done
completely independently of providing the native format support in
savepoints.
Best,
Piotrek
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-203%3A+Incremental+savepoints
--
Konstantin Knauf
https://twitter.com/snntrable
https://github.com/knaufk
