Hi Stefan,
Thanks for all the comments! That is really helpful and I have updated the
FLIP based on your comments. Please see my reply inline.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:23 PM Stefan Richter
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After reading through the discussion, I think the FLIP should provide
> additional deta
Hi,
After reading through the discussion, I think the FLIP should provide
additional details and explanations about the exact semantics of the end-to-end
latency configuration and how it interacts with all other configurations around
latency, such as checkpointing. In this context, I have a few
Hi Dong,
Thanks for the update!
Best regards,
Jing
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 3:26 AM Dong Lin wrote:
> Hi Jing,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions. Please see my reply inline.
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 3:50 PM Jing Ge wrote:
>
> > Hi Dong,
> >
> > Thanks for your clarification.
> >
> >
> > > Actual
Hi Jing,
Thanks for the suggestions. Please see my reply inline.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 3:50 PM Jing Ge wrote:
> Hi Dong,
>
> Thanks for your clarification.
>
>
> > Actually, I think it could make sense to toggle isBacklog between true
> and
> > false while the job is running.
> >
>
> If isBack
Hi Dong,
Thanks for your clarification.
> Actually, I think it could make sense to toggle isBacklog between true and
> false while the job is running.
>
If isBacklog is toggled too often back and forth(e.g. by unexpected
mistake, unstable system, etc), a large amount of RecordAttributes might b
Hi Jing,
Thanks for the comments. Please see my reply inline.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 5:40 AM Jing Ge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you all for the inspired discussion. Really appreciate it!
>
> @Dong I'd like to ask some (stupid) questions to make sure I understand
> your thoughts correctly.
>
> 1. It
Hi,
Thank you all for the inspired discussion. Really appreciate it!
@Dong I'd like to ask some (stupid) questions to make sure I understand
your thoughts correctly.
1. It will make no sense to send the same type of RecordAttributes right?
e.g. if one RecordAttributes(isBacklog=true) has been s
Hi Shammon,
Thanks for your comments. Please see my reply inline.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 12:47 PM Shammon FY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your replay @Dong. I really agree with Piotr's points and I
> would like to share some thoughts from my side.
>
> About the latency for mini-batch mechanism
Hi Piotr,
Thanks for your comments. Please see my reply inline.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 1:54 AM Piotr Nowojski
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this proposal, this is a very much needed thing that should be
> addressed in Flink.
>
> I think there is one thing that hasn't been discussed neither here
Hi,
Thanks for your replay @Dong. I really agree with Piotr's points and I
would like to share some thoughts from my side.
About the latency for mini-batch mechanism in Flink SQL, I still think the
description in the FLIP is not right. If there are N operators and the
whole process time for data
Hi,
Thanks for this proposal, this is a very much needed thing that should be
addressed in Flink.
I think there is one thing that hasn't been discussed neither here nor in
FLIP-309. Given that we have
three dimensions:
- e2e latency/checkpointing interval
- enabling some kind of batching/bufferin
Hi Shammon,
Thanks for your comments. Please see my reply inline.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 6:01 PM Shammon FY wrote:
> Hi Dong and Yunfeng,
>
> Thanks for bringing up this discussion.
>
> As described in the FLIP, the differences between `end-to-end latency` and
> `table.exec.mini-batch.allow-la
Hi Martijn,
Thanks for your feedback! Please see my replhy inline.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 4:35 PM Martijn Visser
wrote:
> Hi Dong and Yunfeng,
>
> Thanks for the FLIP. What's not clear for me is what's the expected
> behaviour when the allowed latency can't be met, for whatever reason.
> Given
Hi Dong and Yunfeng,
Thanks for bringing up this discussion.
As described in the FLIP, the differences between `end-to-end latency` and
`table.exec.mini-batch.allow-latency` are: "It allows users to specify the
end-to-end latency, whereas table.exec.mini-batch.allow-latency applies to
each operat
Hi Dong and Yunfeng,
Thanks for the FLIP. What's not clear for me is what's the expected
behaviour when the allowed latency can't be met, for whatever reason.
Given that we're talking about an "allowed latency", it implies that
something has gone wrong and should fail? Isn't this more a minimum
la
15 matches
Mail list logo
