Thanks for your answers, Piotrek. I got it now. +1 for this improvement. Best, Yanfei
Stefan Richter <srich...@confluent.io.invalid> 于2024年4月30日周二 21:30写道： > > > Thanks for the improvement proposal, I’m +1 for the change! > > Best, > Stefan > > > > > On 30. Apr 2024, at 15:23, Roman Khachatryan <ro...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the proposal, I definitely see the need for this improvement, +1. > > > > Regards, > > Roman > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org > > <mailto:pnowoj...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > >> Hi Yanfei, > >> > >> Thanks for the feedback! > >> > >>> 1. Currently when AbstractStreamOperator or AbstractStreamOperatorV2 > >>> processes a watermark, the watermark will be sent to downstream, if > >>> the `InternalTimerServiceImpl#advanceWatermark` is interrupted, when > >>> is the watermark sent downstream? > >> > >> The watermark would be outputted by an operator only once all relevant > >> timers are fired. > >> In other words, if firing of timers is interrupted a continuation mail to > >> continue firing those > >> interrupted timers is created. Watermark will be emitted downstream at the > >> end of that > >> continuation mail. > >> > >>> 2. IIUC, processing-timer's firing is also encapsulated into mail and > >>> executed in mailbox. Is processing-timer allowed to be interrupted? > >> > >> Yes, both firing processing and even time timers share the same code and > >> both will > >> support interruptions in the same way. Actually I've renamed the FLIP from > >> > >>> Interruptible watermarks processing > >> > >> to: > >> > >>> Interruptible timers firing > >> > >> to make this more clear. > >> > >> Best, > >> Piotrek > >> > >> wt., 30 kwi 2024 o 06:08 Yanfei Lei <fredia...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> > >>> Hi Piotrek, > >>> > >>> Thanks for this proposal. It looks like it will shorten the checkpoint > >>> duration, especially in the case of back pressure. +1 for it! I'd > >>> like to ask some questions to understand your thoughts more precisely. > >>> > >>> 1. Currently when AbstractStreamOperator or AbstractStreamOperatorV2 > >>> processes a watermark, the watermark will be sent to downstream, if > >>> the `InternalTimerServiceImpl#advanceWatermark` is interrupted, when > >>> is the watermark sent downstream? > >>> 2. IIUC, processing-timer's firing is also encapsulated into mail and > >>> executed in mailbox. Is processing-timer allowed to be interrupted? > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Yanfei > >>> > >>> Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> 于2024年4月29日周一 21:57写道： > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> I would like to start a discussion on FLIP-443: Interruptible watermark > >>>> processing. > >>>> > >>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/qgn9EQ&source=gmail-imap&ust=1715088370000000&usg=AOvVaw0eTZDvLwdZUDai5GqoSGrD > >>>> > >>>> This proposal tries to make Flink's subtask thread more responsive when > >>>> processing watermarks/firing timers, and make those operations > >>>> interruptible/break them apart into smaller steps. At the same time, > >> the > >>>> proposed solution could be potentially adopted in other places in the > >>> code > >>>> base as well, to solve similar problems with other flatMap-like > >> operators > >>>> (non windowed joins, aggregations, CepOperator, ...). > >>>> > >>>> I'm looking forward to your thoughts. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Piotrek >
