Github user sunjincheng121 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4061
Thanks @fhueske, I noticed your description on the JIRA. issue. I think
it's make sense to me. Because at the current time between
`StreamTableSourceTable` and `(Batch)TableSourceTable`
Github user fhueske commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4061
Hi @sunjincheng121! I left a comment on the JIRA issue. Short summary: I
don't think this PR is a significant improvement. I'd rather keep it as it is
unless you have a good argument to convince me.
Github user sunjincheng121 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4061
Hi, @wuchong Thanks for your reviewing. I meant from the perspective of
grammar is allow batch table source to implement the `DefinedProctimeAttribute`
and `DefinedRowtimeAttribute`. We are
Github user wuchong commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4061
@twalthr @sunjincheng121 `DefinedProctimeAttribute` and
`DefinedRowtimeAttribute` doesn't work in batch table source, currently. BTW, I
don't think batch table source needs
Github user sunjincheng121 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4061
Hi @twalthr I think `DefinedProctimeAttribute` can be implemented by a
batch table source. If we do not want a batch table source can implements
`DefinedProctimeAttribute `, we should add
Github user twalthr commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4061
I'm not sure about this change. A batch table source would be able to
create a time attribute if it implements `DefinedProctimeAttribute`, right?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
