Hi Stefan, Thanks for your detailed explanation.
Best, Tony Wei 2018-08-17 15:56 GMT+08:00 Stefan Richter <s.rich...@data-artisans.com>: > Hi, > > it will not be transported. The JM does the state assignment to create the > deployment information for all tasks. If will just exclude the state for > operators that are not present. So in your next checkpoints they will no > longer be contained. > > Best, > Stefan > > > Am 17.08.2018 um 09:26 schrieb Tony Wei <tony19920...@gmail.com>: > > Hi Chesnay, > > Thanks for your quick reply. I have another question. Will the state, > which is ignored, be transported > to TMs from DFS? Or will it be detected by JM's checkpoint coordinator and > only those states reuired > by operators be transported to each TM? > > Best, > Tony Wei > > 2018-08-17 14:38 GMT+08:00 Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org>: > >> The state won't exist in the snapshot. >> >> >> On 17.08.2018 04:38, Tony Wei wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm confused about the description in documentation. [1] >> >> >> - *Removing a stateful operator:* The state of the removed operator >> is lost unless >> another operator takes it over. When starting the upgraded >> application, you have >> to explicitly agree to discard the state. >> >> Does that mean if I take a full snapshot (e.g. savepoint) after restoring >> by explicitly agreeing to >> discard the state, then the state won't exist in that snapshot? Or does >> it just mean ignore the >> state but the state still exist forever, unless I explicitly purge that >> state by using state operator? >> >> And could this behavior differ between different state backend (Memory, >> FS, RocksDB) ? >> >> Many thanks, >> Tony Wei >> >> [1] https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/ >> ops/upgrading.html#application-topology >> >> >> > >
