Congrats all! Well done!
Cheers,
Panagiotis
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 2:46 AM Qingsheng Ren wrote:
> I'd like to say thank you to all contributors of Flink 1.17. Your support
> and great work together make this giant step forward!
>
> Also like Matthias mentioned, feel free to leave us any sugges
That sounds like a great hack :D
I'll give it a try for sure. Thank you!
/David
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 5:25 PM Schwalbe Matthias <
matthias.schwa...@viseca.ch> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> … coming in late into this discussion
>
>
>
> We had a very similar problem and I found a simple way to implement
Hi David,
… coming in late into this discussion
We had a very similar problem and I found a simple way to implement priming
savepoints with mixed keyed/operator state.
The trick is this:
* In your KeyedStateBootstrapFunction also implement CheckpointedFunction
* In initializeState() you
Hello Apache Flink Community,
I hope you are all doing well. As active Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
community members, we share a strong interest in open-source technologies
and their ability to drive innovation across various industries.
In this spirit, I am thrilled to invite you to partici
Hi Viacheslav,
… back from vacation
… you are welcome, glad to hear it worked out 😊
Thias
From: Viacheslav Chernyshev
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:34 PM
To: user@flink.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it possible to preserve chaining for multi-input operators?
Hi Matthias,
Just wanted to than
I'd like to say thank you to all contributors of Flink 1.17. Your support
and great work together make this giant step forward!
Also like Matthias mentioned, feel free to leave us any suggestions and
let's improve the releasing procedure together.
Cheers,
Qingsheng
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 5:00 P
Hello Team,Need your advice on which method is recommended considering don't
want to change my query code when the Flink is updated/upgraded to the higher
version.
Here I am seeking advice for writing the SQL using java code(Table API
function and Expression) or using pure SQL.
I am assuming th
Hi, Elkhan,
I think this is an intended behavior. If the parallelism of an operator is
not specified, it will be the same as the previous one instead of the
default parallelism.
Actually the table planner will help us to do most jobs. There should not
be a way to modify the parallelism for every o
