Hi, Timo, Jark. I am fine with the new option name.
Best, Shengkai Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org>于2021年2月9日 周二下午5:35写道： > 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. > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
