[jira] [Created] (FLINK-33164) HBase connector support ignore null value for partial update
tanjialiang created FLINK-33164:
---
Summary: HBase connector support ignore null value for partial
update
Key: FLINK-33164
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33164
Project: Flink
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Connectors / HBase
Affects Versions: hbase-3.0.0
Reporter: tanjialiang
Sometimes, user want to write data and ignore null value to achieve partial
update. So i suggest adding an options: sink.ignore-null-value.
{code:java}
CREATE TABLE hTable (
rowkey STRING,
cf1 ROW,
PRIMARY KEY (rowkey) NOT ENFORCED
) WITH (
'connector' = 'hbase-2.2',
'table-name' = 'default:test',
'zookeeper.quorum' = 'localhost:2181',
'sink.ignore-null-value' = 'true' -- default is false, true is enabled
);
INSERT INTO hTable VALUES('1', ROW('10', 'hello, world'));
INSERT INTO hTable VALUES('1', ROW('30', CAST(NULL AS STRING))); -- null value
to cf1.q2
-- when sink.ignore-null-value is false
// after first insert
{rowkey: "1", "cf1": {q1: "10", q2: "hello, world"}}
// after second insert, cf1.q2 update to null
{rowkey: "1", "cf1": {q1: "30", q2: "null"}}
-- when sink.ignore-null-value is true
// after first insert
{rowkey: "1", "cf1": {q1: "10", q2: "hello, world"}}
// after second insert, cf1.q2 is still the old value
{rowkey: "1", "cf1": {q1: "30", q2: "hello, world"}} {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-370 : Support Balanced Tasks Scheduling
Thanks Yuepeng and Rui for creating this FLIP. +1 in general The idea is straight forward: best-effort gather all the slot requests and offered slots to form an overview before assigning slots, trying to balance the loads of task managers when assigning slots. I have one comment regarding the configuration for ease of use: IIUC, this FLIP uses an existing config 'cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots' as the main switch of the new feature. That is, from user perspective, with this improvement, the 'cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots' feature not only balances the number of slots on task managers, but also balances the number of tasks. This is a behavior change anyway. Besides that, it also requires users to set 'slot.sharing-strategy' to 'TASK_BALANCED_PREFERRED' to balance the tasks in each slot. I think we can introduce a new config option `taskmanager.load-balance.mode`, which accepts "None"/"Slots"/"Tasks". `cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots` can be superseded by the "Slots" mode and get deprecated. In the future it can support more mode, e.g. "CpuCores", to work better for jobs with fine-grained resources. The proposed config option `slot.request.max-interval` then can be renamed to `taskmanager.load-balance.request-stablizing-timeout` to show its relation with the feature. The proposed `slot.sharing-strategy` is not needed, because the configured "Tasks" mode will do the work. WDYT? Thanks, Zhu Zhu Yuepeng Pan 于2023年9月25日周一 16:26写道： > Hi all, > > > I and Fan Rui(CC’ed) created the FLIP-370[1] to support balanced tasks > scheduling. > > > The current strategy of Flink to deploy tasks sometimes leads some > TMs(TaskManagers) to have more tasks while others have fewer tasks, > resulting in excessive resource utilization at some TMs that contain more > tasks and becoming a bottleneck for the entire job processing. Developing > strategies to achieve task load balancing for TMs and reducing job > bottlenecks becomes very meaningful. > > > The raw design and discussions could be found in the Flink JIRA[2] and > Google doc[3]. We really appreciate Zhu Zhu(CC’ed) for providing some > valuable help and suggestions in advance. > > > Please refer to the FLIP[1] document for more details about the proposed > design and implementation. We welcome any feedback and opinions on this > proposal. > > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-370%3A+Support+Balanced+Tasks+Scheduling > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-31757 > > [3] > https://docs.google.com/document/d/14WhrSNGBdcsRl3IK7CZO-RaZ5KXU2X1dWqxPEFr3iS8 > > > Best, > > Yuepeng Pan >
[jira] [Created] (FLINK-33165) Flink UI stack trace popup continually displayed when a job is deleted
david radley created FLINK-33165: Summary: Flink UI stack trace popup continually displayed when a job is deleted Key: FLINK-33165 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33165 Project: Flink Issue Type: Bug Components: Runtime / Web Frontend Environment: MacOS M1 . Reporter: david radley Fix For: 1.7.3 If you run a job and view that running job in the Flink dashboard, then delete the job, the UI displays a pop-up with an information icon and a message and stack trace . This is repeatedly displayed every second or so. If we must display a popup is should be once without the stack (which implies there is an error - the stack trace is not useful to the user). We should look into whether we need a popup in this case. It would be better to not display a popup, as this should be just a state change. An example popup content is: *Server Response Message:* org.apache.flink.runtime.rest.NotFoundException: Job 4e332318d164d86e76a239eabd49bf93 not found at org.apache.flink.runtime.rest.handler.job.AbstractExecutionGraphHandler.lambda$handleRequest$1(AbstractExecutionGraphHandler.java:99) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.uniExceptionally(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$UniExceptionally.tryFire(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.postComplete(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.completeExceptionally(Unknown Source) at org.apache.flink.runtime.rest.handler.legacy.DefaultExecutionGraphCache.lambda$getExecutionGraphInternal$0(DefaultExecutionGraphCache.java:109) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.uniWhenComplete(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$UniWhenComplete.tryFire(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.postComplete(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.completeExceptionally(Unknown Source) at org.apache.flink.runtime.rpc.akka.AkkaInvocationHandler.lambda$invokeRpc$1(AkkaInvocationHandler.java:260) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.uniWhenComplete(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$UniWhenComplete.tryFire(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.postComplete(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.completeExceptionally(Unknown Source) at org.apache.flink.util.concurrent.FutureUtils.doForward(FutureUtils.java:1298) at org.apache.flink.runtime.concurrent.akka.ClassLoadingUtils.lambda$guardCompletionWithContextClassLoader$1(ClassLoadingUtils.java:93) at org.apache.flink.runtime.concurrent.akka.ClassLoadingUtils.runWithContextClassLoader(ClassLoadingUtils.java:68) at org.apache.flink.runtime.concurrent.akka.ClassLoadingUtils.lambda$guardCompletionWithContextClassLoader$2(ClassLoadingUtils.java:92) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.uniWhenComplete(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$UniWhenComplete.tryFire(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.postComplete(Unknown Source) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.completeExceptionally(Unknown Source) at org.apache.flink.runtime.concurrent.akka.AkkaFutureUtils$1.onComplete(AkkaFutureUtils.java:45) at akka.dispatch.OnComplete.internal(Future.scala:299) at akka.dispatch.OnComplete.internal(Future.scala:297) at akka.dispatch.japi$CallbackBridge.apply(Future.scala:224) at akka.dispatch.japi$CallbackBridge.apply(Future.scala:221) at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.run(Promise.scala:64) at org.apache.flink.runtime.concurrent.akka.AkkaFutureUtils$DirectExecutionContext.execute(AkkaFutureUtils.java:65) at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.executeWithValue(Promise.scala:72) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$DefaultPromise.$anonfun$tryComplete$1(Promise.scala:288) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$DefaultPromise.$anonfun$tryComplete$1$adapted(Promise.scala:288) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$DefaultPromise.tryComplete(Promise.scala:288) at akka.pattern.PromiseActorRef.$bang(AskSupport.scala:622) at akka.pattern.PipeToSupport$PipeableFuture$$anonfun$pipeTo$1.applyOrElse(PipeToSupport.scala:25) at akka.pattern.PipeToSupport$PipeableFuture$$anonfun$pipeTo$1.applyOrElse(PipeToSupport.scala:23) at scala.concurrent.Future.$anonfun$andThen$1(Future.scala:536) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise.liftedTree1$1(Promise.scala:33) at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise.$anonfun$transform$1(Promise.scala:33) at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.run(Promise.scala:64) at akka.dispatch.BatchingExecutor$AbstractBatch.processBatch(BatchingExecutor.scala:63) at akka.dispatch.BatchingExecutor$BlockableBatch.$anonfun$run$1(Bat
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-327: Support switching from batch to stream mode to improve throughput when processing backlog data
Thank you all for the votes! I will close the voting thread and summarize the result in a separate email. On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 1:11 AM Ahmed Hamdy wrote: > +1(non binding) > Best regards > Ahmed Hamdy > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, 19:57 Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan, > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023, 6:49 PM Xintong Song > wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Xintong > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 10:16 PM Yuepeng Pan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1(non-binding), thank you for driving this proposal. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Yuepeng Pan. > > > > At 2023-09-22 14:07:45, "Dong Lin" wrote: > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > > > >We would like to start the vote for FLIP-327: Support switching from > > > batch > > > > >to stream mode to improve throughput when processing backlog data > [1]. > > > > This > > > > >FLIP was discussed in this thread [2]. > > > > > > > > > >The vote will be open until at least Sep 27th (at least 72 > > > > >hours), following the consensus voting process. > > > > > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > >Xuannan and Dong > > > > > > > > > >[1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-327*3A*Support*switching*from*batch*to*stream*mode*to*improve*throughput*when*processing*backlog*data__;JSsrKysrKysrKysrKysr!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!ZP19r7-3IBaBI-kV0olZvaz5a2TFN3uxge2TJM7WQvovjfRbOl71NaC3SEh_UEJmH7Lssqu0bx4FKResPPc7$ > > > > >[2] > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.apache.org/thread/29nvjt9sgnzvs90browb8r6ng31dcs3n__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!ZP19r7-3IBaBI-kV0olZvaz5a2TFN3uxge2TJM7WQvovjfRbOl71NaC3SEh_UEJmH7Lssqu0bx4FKZEAz9yp$ > > > > > > > > > >
[RESULT][VOTE] FLIP-327: Support switching from batch to stream mode to improve throughput when processing backlog data
Hi all, Thank everyone for your review and the votes! I am happy to announce that FLIP-327: Support switching from batch to stream mode to improve throughput when processing backlog data [1] has been accepted. There are 4 binding votes and 3 non-binding votes [2]: - Jing Ge (binding) - Rui Fan (binding) - Xintong Song (binding) - Dong Lin (binding) - Yuepeng Pan (non-binding) - Venkatakrishnan Sowrirajan (non-binding) - Ahmed Hamdy (non-binding) There is no disapproving vote. Cheers, Dong [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-327 %3A+Support+switching+from+batch+to+stream+mode+to+improve+throughput+when+processing+backlog+data [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/7cj6pzx7w0ynqyogxgk668wjr322mcqw
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release 1.18.0, release candidate #0
Hi Folks, @Ryan FYI: CI passed and the PR has been merged. Thanks! If there are no more other concerns, I will start publishing 1.18-rc1. Best regards, Jing On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 1:40 PM Jing Ge wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > Thanks for reaching out. It is fine to include it but we need to wait > until the CI passes. I am not sure how long it will take, since there seems > to be some infra issues. > > Best regards, > Jing > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:34 AM Ryan Skraba > wrote: > >> Hello! There's a security fix that probably should be applied to 1.18 >> in the next RC1 : https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23461 (bump to >> snappy-java). Do you think this would be possible to include? >> >> All my best, Ryan >> >> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33149 "Bump >> snappy-java to 1.1.10.4" >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 3:54 PM Jing Ge >> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks Zakelly for the update! Appreciate it! >> > >> > @Piotr Nowojski If you do not have any other >> > concerns, I will move forward to create 1.18 rc1 and start voting. WDYT? >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Jing >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 2:20 AM Zakelly Lan >> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Jing and everyone, >> > > >> > > I have conducted three rounds of benchmarking with Java11, comparing >> > > release 1.18 (commit: deb07e99560[1]) with commit 6d62f9918ea[2]. The >> > > results are attached[3]. Most of the tests show no obvious regression. >> > > However, I did observe significant change in several tests. Upon >> > > reviewing the historical results from the previous pipeline, I also >> > > discovered a substantial variance in those tests, as shown in the >> > > timeline pictures included in the sheet[3]. I believe this variance >> > > has existed for a long time and requires further investigation, and >> > > fully measuring the variance requires more rounds (15 or more). I >> > > think for now it is not a blocker for release 1.18. WDYT? >> > > >> > > >> > > Best, >> > > Zakelly >> > > >> > > [1] >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/deb07e99560b45033a629afc3f90666ad0a32feb >> > > [2] >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/6d62f9918ea2cbb8a10c705a25a4ff6deab60711 >> > > [3] >> > > >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V0-duzNTgu7H6R7kioF-TAPhlqWl7Co6Q9ikTBuaULo/edit?usp=sharing >> > > >> > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 11:29 AM ConradJam >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > +1 for testing with Java 17 >> > > > >> > > > Jing Ge 于2023年9月24日周日 09:40写道： >> > > > >> > > > > +1 for testing with Java 17 too. Thanks Zakelly for your effort! >> > > > > >> > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > Jing >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:01 PM Zakelly Lan < >> zakelly@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Jing, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I agree we could wait for the result with Java 11. And it >> should be >> > > > > > available next Monday. >> > > > > > Additionally, I could also build a pipeline with Java 17 later >> since >> > > > > > it is supported in 1.18[1]. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > Zakelly >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/9c1318ca7fa5b2e7b11827068ad1288483aaa464#diff-8310c97396d60e96766a936ca8680f1e2971ef486cfc2bc55ec9ca5a5333c47fR53 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 5:57 PM Jing Ge >> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Zakelly, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks for your effort and the update! Since Java 8 has been >> > > > > > deprecated[1], >> > > > > > > let's wait for the result with Java 11. It should be available >> > > after >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > weekend and there should be no big surprise. WDYT? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > Jing >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-master/release-notes/flink-1.15/#jdk-upgrade >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:26 AM Zakelly Lan < >> > > zakelly@gmail.com> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi everyone, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I want to provide an update on the benchmark results that I >> have >> > > been >> > > > > > > > working on. After spending some time preparing the >> environment >> > > and >> > > > > > > > adjusting the benchmark script, I finally got a comparison >> > > between >> > > > > > > > release 1.18 (commit: 2aeb99804ba[1]) and the commit before >> the >> > > old >> > > > > > > > codespeed server went down (commit: 6d62f9918ea[2]) on >> openjdk8. >> > > The >> > > > > > > > report is attached[3]. Note that the test has only run once >> on >> > > jdk8, >> > > > > > > > so the impact of single-test fluctuations is not ruled out. >> > > > > > > > Additionally, I have noticed some significant fluctuations >> in >> > > > > specific >> > > > > > > > tests when reviewing previous benchmark scores, which I >> have also
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-367: Support Setting Parallelism for Table/SQL Sources
Hi Zhanghao,
Thanks for the update!
Best regards,
Jing
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 9:54 PM Chen Zhanghao
wrote:
> Hi Jing,
>
> I've updated Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan section to
> list all the potential compatibility issues for users who want to upgrade
> an existing job to use this feature:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=263429150
> .
>
> Best,
> Zhanghao Chen
>
> 发件人: Jing Ge
> 发送时间: 2023年9月25日 23:02
> 收件人: dev@flink.apache.org
> 主题: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-367: Support Setting Parallelism for Table/SQL
> Sources
>
> Hi Zhanghao,
>
> Thanks for driving the FLIP. This is a nice feature users are looking for.
> From users' perspective, would you like to add explicit description about
> any potential(or none) compatibility issues if users want to use this new
> feature and start existing jobs with savepoints or checkpoints?
>
> Best regards,
> Jing
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 9:05 PM Chen Zhanghao
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lincoln,
> >
> > Thanks for the comments.
> >
> > - For concerns #1, I agree that we do not always produce optimal plan for
> > both cases. However, it is difficult to do so and non-trivial complexity
> is
> > expected. On the other hand, although our proposal generates a
> sub-optimal
> > plan when the bottleneck is on the aggregate operator, it still provides
> > more flexibility for performance tuning. Therefore, I think we can
> > implement it in the straightforward way first, WDYT?
> >
> > - For concerns #2, I'd like to clarify a bit: exception will only be
> > thrown i.f.f. the source may produce delete/update messages AND no
> primary
> > key specified AND the source parallelism is different from the default
> > parallelism. So for CDC without pk, we're still good if source
> parallelism
> > is not specified.
> >
> > - For concerns #3, at the current point, I think making the name more
> > specific is better as no other future use cases can be previsioned now.
> > Since this is an internal API, we are free to refactor it later if
> needed.
> >
> > - For concerns about adaptive scheduler, the problems you mentioned do
> > exist, but I don't think it relevant here. The planner may encode some
> > hints to help the scheduler, but afterall, those efforts should be
> > initiated on the scheduler side.
> >
> > Best,
> > Zhanghao Chen
> >
> > 发件人: Lincoln Lee
> > 发送时间: 2023年9月22日 23:19
> > 收件人: dev@flink.apache.org
> > 主题: Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-367: Support Setting Parallelism for Table/SQL
> > Sources
> >
> > Hi Zhanghao,
> >
> > Thanks for the FLIP and discussion! Hope this reply isn't too late : )
> > Firstly I'm fully agreed with the motivation of this FLIP and the value
> for
> > the users, but there are a few things we should consider(please correct
> me
> > if I'm misunderstanding):
> >
> > *1. *It seems that the current solution only takes care of part of the
> > requirement, the need to set source's parallelism may be different in
> > different jobs, for example, consider the following two job
> topologies(one
> > {} simply represents a vertex):
> > a. {source -> calc -> sink}
> >
> > b. {source -> calc} -> {aggregate} -> {sink}
> >
> > For job a, if there is a bottleneck in calc operator, but source
> > parallelism cannot be scaled up (e.g., limited by kafka's partition
> > number), so the calc operator cannot be scaled up to achieve higher
> > throughput because the operators in source vertex are chained together,
> > then current solution is reasonable (break the chain, add a shuffle).
> >
> > But for job b, if the bottleneck is the aggregate operator (not calc),
> it's
> > more likely be better to scale up the aggregate operator/vertex and
> without
> > breaking the {source -> calc} chain, as this will incur additional
> shuffle
> > cost.
> > So if we decide to add this new feature, I would recommend that both
> cases
> > be taken care of.
> >
> >
> > 2. the assumption that a cdc source must have pk(primary key) may not be
> > reasonable, for example, mysql cdc supports the case without pk(
> >
> >
> https://ververica.github.io/flink-cdc-connectors/master/content/connectors/mysql-cdc.html#tables-without-primary-keys
> > ),
> > so we can not just raise an error here.
> >
> >
> > 3. for the new SourceTransformationWrapper I have some concerns about the
> > future evolution, if we need to add support for other operators, do we
> > continue to add new xxWrappers?
> >
> > I've also revisited the previous discussion on FLIP-146[1], there were no
> > clear conclusions or good ideas about similar support issues for the
> source
> > before, and I also noticed that the new capability to change per-vertex
> > parallelism via rest api in 1.18 (part of FLIP-291[2][3], but there is
> > actually an issue about sql job's parallelism change which may require a
> > hash shuffle to ensure the order of update stream, this needs to be
> > followed up in FLIP-291, a jira will be creat
Re: [DISCUSS] [FLINK-32873] Add a config to allow disabling Query hints
Hi Martjin, Yes, the suggestion for the configuration name made by Jark sounds good. Also, thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 2:40 PM Martijn Visser wrote: > Hey Jark, > > Sounds fine to me. > @Bonnie does that also work for you? > > Best regards, > > Martijn > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 1:28 PM Jark Wu wrote: > > > > Hi Martijn, > > > > Thanks for the investigation. I found the blog[1] shows a use case > > that they use "OPTIMIZER_IGNORE_HINTS" to check if embedded > > hints can be removed in legacy code. I think this is a useful tool to > > improve queries without complex hints strewn throughout the code. > > Therefore, I'm fine to support this now. > > > > Maybe we can follow Oracle to name the config > > "table.optimizer.ignore-query-hints=false"? > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > [1]: https://dbaora.com/optimizer_ignore_hints-oracle-database-18c/ > > > > On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 17:57, Martijn Visser > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Jark, > > > > > > Oracle has/had a generic "OPTIMIZER_IGNORE_HINTS" [1]. It looks like > MSSQL > > > has configuration options to disable specific hints [2] instead of a > > > generic solution. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/23/refrn/OPTIMIZER_IGNORE_HINTS.html#GUID-D62CA6D8-D0D8-4A20-93EA-EEB4B3144347 > > > [2] > > > > > > > https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/4175/disabling-sql-server-optimizer-rules-with-queryruleoff/ > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:53 AM Jark Wu wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Martijn, > > > > > > > > I can understand that. > > > > Is there any database/system that supports disabling/enabling query > hints > > > > with a configuration? This might help us to understand the use case, > > > > and follow the approach. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jark > > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 15:34, Martijn Visser < > martijnvis...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I think Jark has a valid point with: > > > > > > > > > > > Does this mean that in the future we might add an option to > disable > > > > each > > > > > feature? > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that's a reasonable outcome indeed, but we are > currently > > > > in a > > > > > situation where we don't have clear guidelines on when to add a > > > > > configuration option, and when not to add one. From a platform > > > > perspective, > > > > > there might not be an imminent or obvious security implication, > but you > > > > > want to minimize a potential attack surface. > > > > > > > > > > > We should try to remove the unnecessary configuration from the > list > > > in > > > > > Flink 2.0. > > > > > > > > > > I agree with that too. > > > > > > > > > > With these things in mind, my proposal would be the following: > > > > > > > > > > * Add a configuration option for this situation, given that we > don't > > > have > > > > > clear guidelines on when to add/not add a new config option. > > > > > * Since we want to overhaul the configuration layer anyway in Flink > > > 2.0, > > > > we > > > > > clean-up the configuration list by not having an option for each > item, > > > > but > > > > > either a generic option that allows you to disable one or more > features > > > > (by > > > > > providing a list as the configuration option), or we already bundle > > > > > multiple configuration options into a specific category, e.g. so > that > > > you > > > > > can have a default Flink without any hardening, a read-only Flink, > a > > > > > fully-hardened Flink etc) > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 4:51 PM Jim Hughes > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jing and Jark! > > > > > > > > > > > > I can definitely appreciate the desire to have fewer > configurations. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have a suggested alternative for platform providers to > limit > > > or > > > > > > restrict the hints that Bonnie is talking about? > > > > > > > > > > > > As one possibility, maybe one configuration could be set to > control > > > all > > > > > > hints. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 6:16 AM Jark Wu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Jing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My biggest concern is this makes the boundary of adding an > option > > > > very > > > > > > > unclear. > > > > > > > It's not a strong reason to add a config just because of it > doesn't > > > > > > affect > > > > > > > existing > > > > > > > users. Does this mean that in the future we might add an > option to > > > > > > disable > > > > > > > each feature? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flink already has a very long list of configurations [1][2] and > > > this > > > > is > > > > > > > very scary > > > > > > > and not easy to use. We should try to remove the unnecessary > > > > > > configuration >
Re: [DISCUSS] Implementing SQL remote functions
Hello Alan,
At my company we implemented an open source Flink HTTP connector, that you
might find interesting. It can be represented as a source table as well
and be used in lookups. Here is the link
https://github.com/getindata/flink-http-connector
Best
Krzysztof
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 7:34 AM Feng Jin wrote:
> Hi Alan
>
> I believe that supporting asynchronous UDF is a valuable
> feature. Currently, there is a similar FLIP[1] available:
> Can this meet your needs?
>
> [1].
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-313%3A+Add+support+of+User+Defined+AsyncTableFunction
>
>
> Best,
> Feng
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 1:12 PM Alan Sheinberg
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > Thanks for your response. I've answered some of your questions below.
> >
> > I think one solution is to support Mini-Batch Lookup Join by the
> framework
> > > layer, do a RPC call by a batch input row, which can improve
> throughput.
> >
> >
> > Would the idea be to collect a batch and then do a single RPC (or at
> least
> > handle a number of rpcs in a single AsyncLookupFunction call)? That is
> an
> > interesting idea and could simplify things. For our use cases,
> > technically, I can write a AsyncLookupFunction and utilize
> > AsyncWaitOperator using unbatched RPCs and do a Lookup Join without any
> > issue. My hesitation is that I'm afraid that callers will find it
> > unintuitive to join with a table where the underlying RPC is not being
> > modeled in that manner. For example, it could be a text classifier
> > IS_POSITIVE_SENTIMENT(...) where there's no backing table, just
> > computation.
> >
> > how does the remote function help to solve your problem?
> >
> >
> > The problem is pretty open-ended. There are jobs where you want to join
> > data with some external data source and inject it into your pipeline, but
> > others might also be offloading some computation to an external system.
> > The external system might be owned by a different party, have different
> > permissions, have different hardware to do a computation (e.g. train a
> > model), or just block for a while. The most intuitive invocation for
> this
> > is just a scalar function in SQL. You just want it to be able to run at
> a
> > high throughput.
> >
> > Regarding implementing the Remote Function, can you go into more detail
> > > about your idea, how we should support it, and how users should use it,
> > > from API design to semantic explanation？and
> >
> >
> > The unimplemented option I gave the most thought to is 3). You can
> imagine
> > an AsyncScalarFunction definition and example class like:
> >
> > public class AsyncScalarFunction extends UserDefinedFunction {
> > @Override public final FunctionKind getKind() {
> > return FunctionKind.ASYNC_SCALAR;
> > }
> > @Override public TypeInference getTypeInference(DataTypeFactory
> > typeFactory) {
> >return TypeInferenceExtractor.forAsyncScalarFunction(typeFactory,
> > getClass());
> > }
> > }
> >
> > class MyScalarFunction extends AsyncScalarFunction {
> > // Eval method with a future to use as a callback, with arbitrary
> > additional arguments
> > public void eval(CompletableFuture result, String input) {
> > // Example which uses an async http client
> > AsyncHttpClient httpClient = new AsyncHttpClient();
> > // Do the request and then invoke the callback depending on the
> > outcome.
> > Future responseFuture =
> httpClient.doPOST(getRequestBody(
> > input));
> > responseFuture.handle((response, throwable) -> {
> > if (throwable != null) {
> > result.completeExceptionally(throwable);
> > } else {
> > result.complete(response.getBody());
> > }
> >});
> > }
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > Then you can register it in your Flink program as with other UDFs and
> call
> > it:
> > tEnv.createTemporarySystemFunction("MY_FUNCTION",
> MyScalarFunction.class);
> > TableResult result = tEnv.executeSql("SELECT MY_FUNCTION(input) FROM
> > (SELECT i.input from Inputs i ORDER BY i.timestamp)");
> >
> > I know there are questions about SQL semantics to consider. For example,
> > does invocation of MY_FUNCTION preserve the order of the subquery above.
> > To be SQL compliant, I believe it must, so any async request we send out
> > must be output in order, regardless of when they complete. There are
> > probably other considerations as well. This for example is implemented
> as
> > an option already in AsyncWaitOperator.
> >
> > I could do a similar dive into option 2) if that would also be helpful,
> > though maybe this is a good starting point for conversation.
> >
> > Hope that addressed your questions,
> > Alan
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 6:51 PM liu ron wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Alan
> > >
> > > Thanks for driving this proposal. It sounds interesting.
> > > Regarding implementing the Remote Function, can you go into more detail
> > > about your idea, how we should support it, and how users should use it,
> > > from API design to sem
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-314: Support Customized Job Lineage Listener
+1 (binding) Best, Yangze Guo On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:05 AM Leonard Xu wrote: > > +1(binding) > > > Best, > Leonard > > > On Sep 26, 2023, at 9:59 AM, Feng Jin wrote: > > > > +1(no-binding) > > > > > > thanks for driving this proposal > > > > > > Best, > > Feng > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:19 PM Jing Ge wrote: > > > >> +1(binding) Thanks! > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Jing > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 10:30 PM Shammon FY wrote: > >> > >>> Hi devs, > >>> > >>> Thanks for all the feedback on FLIP-314: Support Customized Job Lineage > >>> Listener [1] in thread [2]. > >>> > >>> I would like to start a vote for it. The vote will be opened for at least > >>> 72 hours unless there is an objection or insufficient votes. > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > >>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-314%3A+Support+Customized+Job+Lineage+Listener > >>> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/wopprvp3ww243mtw23nj59p57cghh7mc > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Shammon FY > >>> > >> >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-314: Support Customized Job Lineage Listener
+1 (binding) Best, Yun Tang From: Yangze Guo Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 9:20 To: dev@flink.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] FLIP-314: Support Customized Job Lineage Listener +1 (binding) Best, Yangze Guo On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:05 AM Leonard Xu wrote: > > +1(binding) > > > Best, > Leonard > > > On Sep 26, 2023, at 9:59 AM, Feng Jin wrote: > > > > +1(no-binding) > > > > > > thanks for driving this proposal > > > > > > Best, > > Feng > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:19 PM Jing Ge wrote: > > > >> +1(binding) Thanks! > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Jing > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 10:30 PM Shammon FY wrote: > >> > >>> Hi devs, > >>> > >>> Thanks for all the feedback on FLIP-314: Support Customized Job Lineage > >>> Listener [1] in thread [2]. > >>> > >>> I would like to start a vote for it. The vote will be opened for at least > >>> 72 hours unless there is an objection or insufficient votes. > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > >>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-314%3A+Support+Customized+Job+Lineage+Listener > >>> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/wopprvp3ww243mtw23nj59p57cghh7mc > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Shammon FY > >>> > >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-370 : Support Balanced Tasks Scheduling
Thanks for driving this FLIP, Yuepeng Pan. +1 for the overall proposal to support balanced scheduling. Some questions on the Waiting mechanism and Allocation strategy for slot to TM: 1. Is it possible for the SlotPool to get the slot allocation results from the SlotManager in advance instead of waiting for the actual physical slots to be registered, and perform pre-allocation? The benefit of doing this is to make the task deployment process smoother, especially when there are a large number of tasks in the job. 2. If user enable the cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots, the issue in example 2 of section 2.2.3 can be resolved. Do I understand it correctly? Best, Yangze Guo On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 9:12 PM Zhu Zhu wrote: > > Thanks Yuepeng and Rui for creating this FLIP. > > +1 in general > The idea is straight forward: best-effort gather all the slot requests > and offered slots to form an overview before assigning slots, trying to > balance the loads of task managers when assigning slots. > > I have one comment regarding the configuration for ease of use: > > IIUC, this FLIP uses an existing config 'cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots' > as the main switch of the new feature. That is, from user perspective, > with this improvement, the 'cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots' feature not > only balances the number of slots on task managers, but also balances the > number of tasks. This is a behavior change anyway. Besides that, it also > requires users to set 'slot.sharing-strategy' to 'TASK_BALANCED_PREFERRED' > to balance the tasks in each slot. > > I think we can introduce a new config option > `taskmanager.load-balance.mode`, > which accepts "None"/"Slots"/"Tasks". `cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots` > can be superseded by the "Slots" mode and get deprecated. In the future > it can support more mode, e.g. "CpuCores", to work better for jobs with > fine-grained resources. The proposed config option > `slot.request.max-interval` > then can be renamed to `taskmanager.load-balance.request-stablizing-timeout` > to show its relation with the feature. The proposed `slot.sharing-strategy` > is not needed, because the configured "Tasks" mode will do the work. > > WDYT? > > Thanks, > Zhu Zhu > > Yuepeng Pan 于2023年9月25日周一 16:26写道： > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I and Fan Rui(CC’ed) created the FLIP-370[1] to support balanced tasks > > scheduling. > > > > > > The current strategy of Flink to deploy tasks sometimes leads some > > TMs(TaskManagers) to have more tasks while others have fewer tasks, > > resulting in excessive resource utilization at some TMs that contain more > > tasks and becoming a bottleneck for the entire job processing. Developing > > strategies to achieve task load balancing for TMs and reducing job > > bottlenecks becomes very meaningful. > > > > > > The raw design and discussions could be found in the Flink JIRA[2] and > > Google doc[3]. We really appreciate Zhu Zhu(CC’ed) for providing some > > valuable help and suggestions in advance. > > > > > > Please refer to the FLIP[1] document for more details about the proposed > > design and implementation. We welcome any feedback and opinions on this > > proposal. > > > > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-370%3A+Support+Balanced+Tasks+Scheduling > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-31757 > > > > [3] > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/14WhrSNGBdcsRl3IK7CZO-RaZ5KXU2X1dWqxPEFr3iS8 > > > > > > Best, > > > > Yuepeng Pan > >
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-370 : Support Balanced Tasks Scheduling
Hi Zhu Zhu, Thanks for your feedback here! You are right, user needs to set 2 options: - cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots=true - slot.sharing-strategy=TASK_BALANCED_PREFERRED Update it to one option is useful at user side, so `taskmanager.load-balance.mode` sounds good to me. I want to check some points and behaviors about this option: 1. The default value is None, right? 2. When it's set to Tasks, how to assign slots to TM? - Option1: It's just check task number - Option2: It''s check the slot number first, then check the task number when the slot number is the same. Giving an example to explain what's the difference between them: - A session cluster has 2 flink jobs, they are jobA and jobB - Each TM has 4 slots. - The task number of one slot of jobA is 3 - The task number of one slot of jobB is 1 - We have 2 TaskManagers: - tm1 runs 3 slots of jobB, so tm1 runs 3 tasks - tm2 runs 1 slot of jobA, and 1 slot of jobB, so tm2 runs 4 tasks. Now, we need to run a new slot, which tm should offer it? - Option1: If we just check the task number, the tm1 is better. - Option2: If we check the slot number first, and then check task, the tm2 is better The original FLIP selected option2, that's why we didn't add the third option. The option2 didn't break the semantics when `cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots` is true, and it just improve the behavior without the semantics is changed. In the other hands, if we choose option2, when user set `taskmanager.load-balance.mode` is Tasks. It also can achieve the goal when it's Slots. So I think the `Slots` enum isn't needed if we choose option2. Of course, If we choose the option1, the enum is needed. Looking forward to your feedback, thanks~ Best, Rui On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 9:11 PM Zhu Zhu wrote: > Thanks Yuepeng and Rui for creating this FLIP. > > +1 in general > The idea is straight forward: best-effort gather all the slot requests > and offered slots to form an overview before assigning slots, trying to > balance the loads of task managers when assigning slots. > > I have one comment regarding the configuration for ease of use: > > IIUC, this FLIP uses an existing config 'cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots' > as the main switch of the new feature. That is, from user perspective, > with this improvement, the 'cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots' feature not > only balances the number of slots on task managers, but also balances the > number of tasks. This is a behavior change anyway. Besides that, it also > requires users to set 'slot.sharing-strategy' to 'TASK_BALANCED_PREFERRED' > to balance the tasks in each slot. > > I think we can introduce a new config option > `taskmanager.load-balance.mode`, > which accepts "None"/"Slots"/"Tasks". `cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots` > can be superseded by the "Slots" mode and get deprecated. In the future > it can support more mode, e.g. "CpuCores", to work better for jobs with > fine-grained resources. The proposed config option > `slot.request.max-interval` > then can be renamed to > `taskmanager.load-balance.request-stablizing-timeout` > to show its relation with the feature. The proposed `slot.sharing-strategy` > is not needed, because the configured "Tasks" mode will do the work. > > WDYT? > > Thanks, > Zhu Zhu > > Yuepeng Pan 于2023年9月25日周一 16:26写道： > >> Hi all, >> >> >> I and Fan Rui(CC’ed) created the FLIP-370[1] to support balanced tasks >> scheduling. >> >> >> The current strategy of Flink to deploy tasks sometimes leads some >> TMs(TaskManagers) to have more tasks while others have fewer tasks, >> resulting in excessive resource utilization at some TMs that contain more >> tasks and becoming a bottleneck for the entire job processing. Developing >> strategies to achieve task load balancing for TMs and reducing job >> bottlenecks becomes very meaningful. >> >> >> The raw design and discussions could be found in the Flink JIRA[2] and >> Google doc[3]. We really appreciate Zhu Zhu(CC’ed) for providing some >> valuable help and suggestions in advance. >> >> >> Please refer to the FLIP[1] document for more details about the proposed >> design and implementation. We welcome any feedback and opinions on this >> proposal. >> >> >> [1] >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-370%3A+Support+Balanced+Tasks+Scheduling >> >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-31757 >> >> [3] >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14WhrSNGBdcsRl3IK7CZO-RaZ5KXU2X1dWqxPEFr3iS8 >> >> >> Best, >> >> Yuepeng Pan >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-370 : Support Balanced Tasks Scheduling
Thanks Yuepeng for initiating this discussion. +1 in general too, in fact we have implemented a similar mechanism internally to ensure a balanced allocation of tasks to slots, it works well. Some comments about the mechanism 1. This mechanism will be only supported in `SlotPool` or both `SlotPool` and `DeclarativeSlotPool`? Currently the two slot pools are used in different schedulers. I think this will also bring value to `DeclarativeSlotPool`, but currently FLIP content seems to be based on `SlotPool`, right? 2. In fine-grained resource management, we can set different resource requirements for different nodes, which means that the resources of each slot are different. What should be done when the slot selected by the round-robin strategy cannot meet the resource requirements? Will this lead to the failure of the balance strategy? 3. Is the assignment of tasks to slots balanced based on region or job level? When multiple TMs fail over, will it cause the balancing strategy to fail or even worse? What is the current processing strategy? For Zhuzhu and Rui: IIUC, the overall balance is divided into two parts: slot to TM and task to slot. 1. Slot to TM is guaranteed by SlotManager in ResourceManager 2. Task to slot is guaranteed by the slot pool in JM These two are completely independent, what are the benefits of unifying these two into one option? Also, do we want to share the same option between SlotPool in JM and SlotManager in RM? This sounds a bit strange. Best, Shammon FY On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 12:08 PM Rui Fan <1996fan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Zhu Zhu, > > Thanks for your feedback here! > > You are right, user needs to set 2 options: > - cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots=true > - slot.sharing-strategy=TASK_BALANCED_PREFERRED > > Update it to one option is useful at user side, so > `taskmanager.load-balance.mode` sounds good to me. > I want to check some points and behaviors about this option: > > 1. The default value is None, right? > 2. When it's set to Tasks, how to assign slots to TM? > - Option1: It's just check task number > - Option2: It''s check the slot number first, then check the > task number when the slot number is the same. > > Giving an example to explain what's the difference between them: > > - A session cluster has 2 flink jobs, they are jobA and jobB > - Each TM has 4 slots. > - The task number of one slot of jobA is 3 > - The task number of one slot of jobB is 1 > - We have 2 TaskManagers: > - tm1 runs 3 slots of jobB, so tm1 runs 3 tasks > - tm2 runs 1 slot of jobA, and 1 slot of jobB, so tm2 runs 4 tasks. > > Now, we need to run a new slot, which tm should offer it? > - Option1: If we just check the task number, the tm1 is better. > - Option2: If we check the slot number first, and then check task, the tm2 > is better > > The original FLIP selected option2, that's why we didn't add the > third option. The option2 didn't break the semantics when > `cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots` is true, and it just improve the > behavior without the semantics is changed. > > In the other hands, if we choose option2, when user set > `taskmanager.load-balance.mode` is Tasks. It also can achieve > the goal when it's Slots. > > So I think the `Slots` enum isn't needed if we choose option2. > Of course, If we choose the option1, the enum is needed. > > Looking forward to your feedback, thanks~ > > Best, > Rui > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 9:11 PM Zhu Zhu wrote: > > > Thanks Yuepeng and Rui for creating this FLIP. > > > > +1 in general > > The idea is straight forward: best-effort gather all the slot requests > > and offered slots to form an overview before assigning slots, trying to > > balance the loads of task managers when assigning slots. > > > > I have one comment regarding the configuration for ease of use: > > > > IIUC, this FLIP uses an existing config 'cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots' > > as the main switch of the new feature. That is, from user perspective, > > with this improvement, the 'cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots' feature not > > only balances the number of slots on task managers, but also balances the > > number of tasks. This is a behavior change anyway. Besides that, it also > > requires users to set 'slot.sharing-strategy' to > 'TASK_BALANCED_PREFERRED' > > to balance the tasks in each slot. > > > > I think we can introduce a new config option > > `taskmanager.load-balance.mode`, > > which accepts "None"/"Slots"/"Tasks". `cluster.evenly-spread-out-slots` > > can be superseded by the "Slots" mode and get deprecated. In the future > > it can support more mode, e.g. "CpuCores", to work better for jobs with > > fine-grained resources. The proposed config option > > `slot.request.max-interval` > > then can be renamed to > > `taskmanager.load-balance.request-stablizing-timeout` > > to show its relation with the feature. The proposed > `slot.sharing-strategy` > > is not needed, because the configured "Tasks" mode will do the work. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Thanks, > > Zhu Zh
access to the design doc of FLINK-12477
Hi Devs, can anyone grant access to the design doc of FLINK-12477? Thanks a lot. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eDpsUKv2FqwZiS1Pm6gYO5eFHScBHfULKmH1-ZEWB4g Shuyi
Re: access to the design doc of FLINK-12477
Hi Shuyi, Thank you for your interest in the previous design. Already CC'ed Jing and Stefan, who might have such doc access. Best Yun Tang From: Shuyi Chen Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 13:37 To: dev Subject: access to the design doc of FLINK-12477 Hi Devs, can anyone grant access to the design doc of FLINK-12477? Thanks a lot. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eDpsUKv2FqwZiS1Pm6gYO5eFHScBHfULKmH1-ZEWB4g Shuyi
[jira] [Created] (FLINK-33166) Support setting root logger level by config
Zhanghao Chen created FLINK-33166:
-
Summary: Support setting root logger level by config
Key: FLINK-33166
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33166
Project: Flink
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Runtime / Configuration
Reporter: Zhanghao Chen
Users currently cannot change logging level by config and have to modify the
cumbersome logger configuration file manually. We'd better provide a shortcut
and support setting root logger level by config.
There're a number configs already to set logger configurations, like
{{env.log.dir}} for logging dir, {{env.log.max}} for max number of old logging
file to save. We can name the new config {{{}env.log.level{}}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-314: Support Customized Job Lineage Listener
+1 (binding) Best, Dizhou Cao
回复: [VOTE] FLIP-314: Support Customized Job Lineage Listener
+1 (non-binding), thanks for driving this. Best, Zhanghao Chen 发件人: Shammon FY 发送时间: 2023年9月25日 13:28 收件人: dev 主题: [VOTE] FLIP-314: Support Customized Job Lineage Listener Hi devs, Thanks for all the feedback on FLIP-314: Support Customized Job Lineage Listener [1] in thread [2]. I would like to start a vote for it. The vote will be opened for at least 72 hours unless there is an objection or insufficient votes. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-314%3A+Support+Customized+Job+Lineage+Listener [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/wopprvp3ww243mtw23nj59p57cghh7mc Best, Shammon FY
