Hi,
I'm not sure I understand your requirement.
However, are you looking for `PreserveWatermarks` in package
`org.apache.flink.table.sources.wmstrategies`?

Best,
JING ZHANG


Arujit Pradhan <arujit.prad...@gojek.com> 于2021年10月25日周一 下午4:02写道:

> Hi all,
>
>
> We maintain an Open-sourced project for protobuf data processing using
> Flink dagger <http://github.com/odpf/dagger>. But we are currently on
> Flink-1.9 and want to migrate to the latest stable 1.14.
>
>
> In the older version, we use `*StreamTableSource` *and `
> *DefinedRowtimeAttributes` *APIs for Table-source definition, similar to
> this
> <https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.9/zh/dev/table/streaming/time_attributes.html#using-a-tablesource-1>.
> But since these APIs are deprecated we are now defining via
> *APIExpressions*.
>
>
> The issue for us is while defining WatermarkStrategy, more specifically
> for the `*PreserveWatermarks*` strategy. We can not find an alternative
> to this, though other WatermarkStrategies like `
> *BoundedOutOfOrderTimestamps`*could be found in the newer API definition
> in `*org.apache.flink.api.common.eventtime.WatermarkStrategy*` package.
>
>
> Currently, we have logic something like in *DefinedRowtimeAttributes* :
>
>
>
> @Override
>
> public *List<RowtimeAttributeDescriptor> *getRowtimeAttributeDescriptors*()
> {*
>
> *    WatermarkStrategy *ws =
>
>             enablePerPartitionWatermark ? new PreserveWatermarks*() *:
> new BoundedOutOfOrderTimestamps*(*watermarkDelay*)*;
>
>     return *Collections*.*singletonList**(*
>
>             new RowtimeAttributeDescriptor*(*rowTimeAttributeName, new
> ExistingField*(*rowTimeAttributeName*)*, ws*))*;
>
> *}*
>
>
>
> We want to use *PreserveWatermarks *in places since while Backfilling
> historical data using flink we want to use underlying Watermark defined in
> Kafka Consumer-level instead of Sources as it will prevent us from data
> drops. Is there any alternate in the new APIs we can use? Or else what can
> we use to get the desired behaviour.
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot, in advance!
>

Reply via email to