[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7388?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16197158#comment-16197158
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-7388:
---------------------------------------

Github user aljoscha commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4786#discussion_r143502884
  
    --- Diff: 
flink-streaming-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/api/operators/KeyedProcessOperator.java
 ---
    @@ -79,7 +79,6 @@ public void onEventTime(InternalTimer<K, VoidNamespace> 
timer) throws Exception
     
        @Override
        public void onProcessingTime(InternalTimer<K, VoidNamespace> timer) 
throws Exception {
    -           collector.setAbsoluteTimestamp(timer.getTimestamp());
    --- End diff --
    
    This should call `eraseTimestamp()` because we might still have a timestamp 
set from processing some previous elements. Same for the other occurrences in 
the code.


> ProcessFunction.onTimer() sets processing time as timestamp
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-7388
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7388
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: DataStream API
>    Affects Versions: 1.4.0, 1.3.2
>            Reporter: Fabian Hueske
>            Assignee: Bowen Li
>             Fix For: 1.4.0
>
>
> The {{ProcessFunction.onTimer()}} method sets the current processing time as 
> event-time timestamp when it is called from a processing time timer.
> I don't think this behavior is useful. Processing time timestamps won't be 
> aligned with watermarks and are not deterministic. The only reason would be 
> to have _some_ value in the timestamp field. However, the behavior is very 
> subtle and might not be noticed by users.
> IMO, it would be better to erase the timestamp. This will cause downstream 
> operator that rely on timestamps to fail and notify the users that the logic 
> they implemented was probably not what they intended to do.
> What do you think [~aljoscha]?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

Reply via email to