Hi Yu, Thanks for moving my comments to this thread! Also, thank you for answering my questions; it is helping me understand the SQL Gateway better.
5. > Our idea is to introduce a new session option (like 'sql-client.result.fetch-interval') to control the fetching requests sending frequency. What do you think? Should this configuration be mentioned in the FLIP? One slight concern I have with having 'sql-client.result.fetch-interval' as a session configuration is that users could set it low and cause the client to send a large volume of requests to the SQL gateway. Generally, I'd like to see some way for the server to be able to limit the number of requests it receives. If that really needs to be done by a proxy in front of the SQL gateway, that is fine as well. (To be clear, I don't think my concern here should be blocking in any way.) 7. > What is the serialization lifecycle for results? I wonder if two other options are possible: 3) Could the Gateway just forward the result byte array? (Or does the Gateway need to deserialize the response in order to understand it for some reason?) 4) Could the JobManager prepare the results in JSON? (Or similarly could the Client read the format which the JobManager sends?) Thanks again! Cheers, Jim On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 9:40 AM yu zelin <yuzelin....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, all > > Thanks Jim’s questions below. Here I’d like to reply to them. > > > 1. For the Client Parser, is it going to work with the extended syntax > > from the Flink Table Store? > > > > 2. Relatedly, what will happen if an older Client tries to handle > syntax > > that a newer service supports? (Suppose I use a 1.17 client with a > 1.18 > > Gateway/system which has a new keyword. Is there anything we should be > > designing for upfront?) > > > > 3. How will client and server version mismatches be handled? Will a > > single gateway be able to support multiple endpoint versions? > > 4. How are commands which change a session handled? Are those sent via > > an ExecuteStatementRequest? > > > > 5. The remote POC uses polling for getting back status and getting back > > results. Would it be possible to switch to web sockets or some other > > mechanism to avoid polling? If polling is used for both, the polling > > frequency should be different between local and remote configurations. > > > > 6. What does this sentence mean? "The reason why we didn't get the sql > > type in client side is because it's hard for the lightweight > client-level > > parser to recognize some sql type sql, such as query with CTE. " > > > > 7. What is the serialization lifecycle for results? It makes sense to > > have some control over whether the gateway returns results as SQL or > JSON. > > I'd love to see a way to avoid needing to serialize and deserialize > results > > on the SQL Gateway if possible. I'm still new enough to the project > that > > I'm not sure if that's readily possible. Maybe the SQL Gateway's > return > > type can be sent as part of the request so that the JobManager can send > > back results in an advantageous format? > > > > 8. Does ErrorType need to be marked as @PublicEvolving? > > > > I'm excited for the SQL client to support gateway mode! Given the change > > in design, do you think it'll still be part of the Flink 1.17 release? > > 1. ClientParser can work with new (and unknown) SQL syntax. It is because > if the > sql type is not recognized, the sql will be submitted to the gateway > directly. > > For more information: Actually, the proposed ClientParser only do two > things: > (1) Tell client commands (help, clear, etc) and sqls apart. > (2) parses several sql types (e.g. SHOW CREATE statement, we can print raw > string > for the SHOW CREATE result instead of table). Here the recognization of > sql types > mostly affects the print style, and unrecognized sql also can be submitted > to cluster. > So the Client with new ClientParser can work compatible with new syntax. > > 2. First, I'd like to explain that the gateway APIs and supported syntax > is two things. > For example, ‘configureSession' and 'completeStatement' are APIs. As > mentioned > in #1, the sql statements which syntax is unknown will be submitted to the > gateway, > and whether they can be executed normally depends on whether the execution > environment supports the syntax. > > > Is there anything we should be designing for upfront? > > The 'SqlGatewayRestAPIVersion’ has been introduced. But it is for sql > gateway APIs. > > 3. > > How will client and server version mismatches be handled? > > A lower version client can work compatible with a higher version gateway > because the > old interfaces won’t be deleted. When a higher version client connects to > a lower version > gateway, the client should notify the users if they try to use unsupported > features. For > example, the client start option ‘-i’ means using initialization file to > initialize the session. > We plan to use the gateway’s ‘configureSession’ to implement it. But this > API is not > implemented in 1.16 Gateway (SqlGatewayRestAPIVersion = V1), so if the > user try to > use ‘-i’ option to start the client with the 1.16 gateway, the client > should tell the user that > Can’t execute ‘-i’ option with gateway which version is lower than V2. > > > Will a single gateway be able to support multiple endpoint versions? > > Currently, the gateway only starts a highest version endpoint and the > higher version endpoint > is compatible with the lower version endpoint’s protocol. > > 4. Yes. Mostly, we use ’SET’ and ‘RESET’ statements to change the session > configuration. > Notice: the client can’t change the session (I mean, close current session > and open another > one). I’m not sure if you have need to change the session itself? > > 5. > > Would it be possible to switch to web sockets or some other mechanism > to avoid polling? > > Your suggestion is very good, but this flip is for supporting the remote > client. How about taking > it as a future work? > > > If polling is used for both, the polling frequency should be different > between local and remote > configurations. > > Our idea is to introduce a new session option (like > 'sql-client.result.fetch-interval') to control > the fetching requests sending frequency. What do you think? > > For more information: we are inclined to keep the polling behavior in this > version. For streaming > query, fetching results synchronously may occupy resources of the gateway > in a long period. > For example, if the job doesn’t return results for a long time because the > window has not been > triggered, the synchronously fetching will keep occupying the connection. > In asynchronous > situation, the gateway can return a NOT_READY_RESULT quickly and release > the resources > for other clients to use. I think we can make some improvements for the > whole flow path in the > future. > > 6. Sorry for that there is mistakes in this sentence. Let me make it clear. > > We proposed to add 'ContentType' to indicates the result is for what kind > of sql. In this sentence, > I want to explain why we add 'ContentType' since the ClientParser can > recognize the sql type too. > It is because the proposed ClientParser can't recognize complex syntax. > For example, it can’t > recognize query with CTE. So the result should carry content type > information to help the client to > know the sql type. For example, the 'ContentType.QUERY_RESULT' indicates > the result is for a > query statement. > > 7. > > What is the serialization lifecycle for results? > > 1) Sink to JobManager : RowData -> Byte[ ] (serialize) > 2) JobManager to Gateway : Byte[ ] -> RowData (deserialize) > 3) Gateway sending : RowData -> Byte[ ] (serialized to JSON > format) > 4) Client receiving : Byte[ ] -> RowData (deserialize) > > > Maybe the SQL Gateway's return type can be sent as part of the request > so that the > JobManager can send back results in an advantageous format? > > Yes. I think it's an improvement for the Client and Gateway. We have some > ideas. For example, > > 1) We can move the Gateway into the JobManager and reduce the Ser/De costs > from JM to Gateway. > 2) Or the Gateway can collect the data from the sink function directly > instead of JobManager. > > But I think we can leave this as a future work and discuss in another > thread. > > 8. Yes. > > > Do you think it'll still be part of the Flink 1.17 release? > Yes. We will try our best to finish the work. > > Feel free to talk to me if I’m wrong or you have any other questions. > > > > 2022年11月25日 11:48，yu zelin <yuzelin....@gmail.com> 写道： > > > > Hi, all > > > > I want to initiate a discussion on the FLIP-275: Support Remote SQL > Client Based on SQL Gateway[1]. > > The motivation of this FLIP is that the current SQL Client allows only > local connection which can not satisfy > > the common need of connecting to a remote cluster. > > > > Since the FLIP-91[2] has introduced SQL Gateway, we proposed to > implement the Remote SQL Client > > based on SQL Gateway. In our design, we proposed two main changes: > > > > 1. New remote mode client which performs connection to the remote > gateway through REST API. > > 2. Migration of the current local mode client. We proposed to refactor > the local client based on SQL Gateway > > to unify the interface for two modes. > > > > Looking forward to your suggestions. > > > > Best, > > Yu Zelin > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/T48ODg > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/rIyMC > >
