Re: SQL Timetamp types incompatible after migration to 1.10

2020-03-20 Thread Paul Lam
Filed an issue to track this problem. [1] [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-16693 Best, Paul Lam > 在 2020年3月20日,17:17,Paul Lam 写道: > > Hi Jark, > > Sorry for my late reply. > > Yes, I’m using the old planner. I’ve tried the

Re: SQL Timetamp types incompatible after migration to 1.10

2020-03-20 Thread Paul Lam
Hi Jark, Sorry for my late reply. Yes, I’m using the old planner. I’ve tried the blink planner, and it works well. We would like to switch to the blink planner, but we’ve developed some custom features on the old planner, so it would take some time to port the codes. So I might give a try to

Re: SQL Timetamp types incompatible after migration to 1.10

2020-03-19 Thread Jark Wu
nector-td33660.html > > > > Best Regards, > > Brian > > > > *From:* Jark Wu > *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2020 17:14 > *To:* Paul Lam > *Cc:* user > *Subject:* Re: SQL Timetamp types incompatible after migration to 1.10 > > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] &

RE: SQL Timetamp types incompatible after migration to 1.10

2020-03-19 Thread B.Zhou
-for-Table-API-on-Pravega-Connector-td33660.html Best Regards, Brian From: Jark Wu Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 17:14 To: Paul Lam Cc: user Subject: Re: SQL Timetamp types incompatible after migration to 1.10 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Paul, Are you using old planner? Did you try blink planner? I

Re: SQL Timetamp types incompatible after migration to 1.10

2020-03-19 Thread Jark Wu
Hi Paul, Are you using old planner? Did you try blink planner? I guess it maybe a bug in old planner which doesn't work well on new types. Best, Jark On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 at 16:27, Paul Lam wrote: > Hi, > > Recently I upgraded a simple application that inserts static data into a > table from 1.