[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2881?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15818894#comment-15818894
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on NIFI-2881:
--------------------------------------

Github user mattyb149 commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1407#discussion_r95627157
  
    --- Diff: 
nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-standard-bundle/nifi-standard-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/standard/GenerateTableFetch.java
 ---
    @@ -115,20 +128,36 @@ public GenerateTableFetch() {
     
         @OnScheduled
         public void setup(final ProcessContext context) {
    +        // The processor is invalid if there is an incoming connection and 
max-value columns are defined
    +        if (context.getProperty(MAX_VALUE_COLUMN_NAMES).isSet() && 
context.hasIncomingConnection()) {
    +            throw new ProcessException("If an incoming connection is 
supplied, no max-value column names may be specified");
    --- End diff --
    
    The original concern is for tables that don't share the same name for 
max-value column. Now that you mention it, I agree that we could allow for a 
static string or EL result (maybe without using an incoming flow file?), and 
just document that all the specified tables must contain the max-value columns. 
 This makes it consistent with Column Names, which currently doesn't have that 
check but has the same requirement. I will add doc to both and update the 
logic, thanks!


> Allow Database Fetch processor(s) to accept incoming flow files and use 
> Expression Language
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: NIFI-2881
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2881
>             Project: Apache NiFi
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Extensions
>            Reporter: Matt Burgess
>            Assignee: Matt Burgess
>
> The QueryDatabaseTable and GenerateTableFetch processors do not allow 
> Expression Language to be used in the properties, mainly because they also do 
> not allow incoming connections. This means if the user desires to fetch from 
> multiple tables, they currently need one instance of the processor for each 
> table, and those table names must be hard-coded.
> To support the same capabilities for multiple tables and more flexible 
> configuration via Expression Language, these processors should have 
> properties that accept Expression Language, and GenerateTableFetch should 
> accept (optional) incoming connections.
> Conversation about the behavior of the processors is welcomed and encouraged. 
> For example, if an incoming flow file is available, do we also still run the 
> incremental fetch logic for tables that aren't specified by this flow file, 
> or do we just do incremental fetching when the processor is scheduled but 
> there is no incoming flow file. The latter implies a denial-of-service could 
> take place, by flooding the processor with flow files and not letting it do 
> its original job of querying the table, keeping track of maximum values, etc.
> This is likely a breaking change to the processors because of how state 
> management is implemented. Currently since the table name is hard coded, only 
> the column name comprises the key in the state. This would have to be 
> extended to have a compound key that represents table name, max-value column 
> name, etc.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to