+1 for the syntax and their semantics
I think the implementation part is still a bit unclear to me because it
only ensures the current status but still does not solve future
requirements such as per-partition watermarks that need to be pushed
into a connector such as Kafka. We can also discuss that as part of the
computed column FLIP.
@Rong: Why do you think you vote is not binding? Committer votes are
binding :-)
Thanks,
Timo
On 29.09.19 02:17, Rong Rong wrote:
+1 (non-binding). Thanks for the effort and leading the discussions @Jark
--
Rong
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 7:36 PM JingsongLee <lzljs3620...@aliyun.com.invalid>
wrote:
+1 non-binding
(nit: Add a road map?)
Best,
Jingsong Lee
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com>
Send Time:2019年9月26日(星期四) 20:44
To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org>
Subject:Re: [VOTE] FLIP-66: Support Time Attribute in SQL DDL (#2)
+1
Best,
Kurt
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to start the vote for FLIP-66 [1], which is discussed and
reached a consensus in the discussion thread[2].
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close it after
Oct. 01 08:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes.
Thanks,
Jark
[1]:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-66%3A+Support+time+attribute+in+SQL+DDL
[2]:
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-66-Support-time-attribute-in-SQL-DDL-tt32766.html
