Yes, `TableEnvironment#executeMultiSql()` can be future work.
@Rui, Shengkai: Are you also fine with this conclusion?
Thanks,
Timo
On 09.02.21 10:14, Jark Wu wrote:
I'm fine with `table.multi-dml-sync`.
My previous concern about "multi" is that DML in CLI looks like single
statement.
But we can treat CLI as a multi-line accepting statements from opening to
closing.
Thus, I'm fine with `table.multi-dml-sync`.
So the conclusion is `table.multi-dml-sync` (false by default), and we will
support this config
in SQL CLI first, will support it in TableEnvironment#executeMultiSql() in
the future, right?
Best,
Jark
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 16:37, Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I understand Rui's concerns. `table.dml-sync` should not apply to
regular `executeSql`. Actually, this option makes only sense when
executing multi statements. Once we have a
`TableEnvironment.executeMultiSql()` this config could be considered.
Maybe we can find a better generic name? Other platforms will also need
to have this config option, which is why I would like to avoid a SQL
Client specific option. Otherwise every platform has to come up with
this important config option separately.
Maybe `table.multi-dml-sync` `table.multi-stmt-sync`? Or other opinions?
Regards,
Timo
On 09.02.21 08:50, Shengkai Fang wrote:
Hi, all.
I think it may cause user confused. The main problem is we have no means
to detect the conflict configuration, e.g. users set the option true and
use `TableResult#await` together.
Best,
Shengkai.
