I also asked some users about their opinion that if we introduce some config prefixed with "table" but doesn't have affection with methods in Table API and SQL. All of them are kind of shocked by such question, asking why we would do anything like this.
This kind of reaction actually doesn't surprise me a lot, so I jumped in and challenged this config option even after the FLIP had already been accepted. If we only have to define the execution behavior for multiple statements in SQL client, we should only introduce a config option which would tell users it's affection scope by its name. Prefixing with "table" is definitely not a good idea here. Best, Kurt On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:39 PM Leonard Xu <xbjt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, all > > Look like there’s only one divergence about option [ table | sql-client > ].dml-sync in this thread, correct me if I’m wrong. > > 1. Leaving the context of this thread, from a user's perspective, > the table.xx configurations should take effect in Table API & SQL, > the sql-client.xx configurations should only take effect in sql-client. > In my(the user's) opinion, other explanations are counterintuitive. > > 2. It should be pointed out that both all existed table.xx configurations > like table.exec.state.ttl, table.optimizer.agg-phase-strategy, > table.local-time-zone,etc.. and the proposed sql-client.xx configurations > like sql-client.verbose, sql-client.execution.max-table-result.rows > comply with this convention. > > 3. Considering the portability to support different CLI tools (sql-client, > sql-gateway, etc.), I prefer table.dml-sync. > > In addition, I think sql-client/sql-gateway/other CLI tools can be placed > out of flink-table module even in an external project, this should not > affect our conclusion. > > > Hope this can help you. > > > Best, > Leonard > > > > > 在 2021年2月25日，18:51，Shengkai Fang <fskm...@gmail.com> 写道： > > > > Hi, everyone. > > > > I do some summaries about the discussion about the option. If the summary > > has errors, please correct me. > > > > `table.dml-sync`: > > - take effect for `executeMultiSql` and sql client > > - benefit: SQL script portability. One script for all platforms. > > - drawback: Don't work for `TableEnvironment#executeSql`. > > > > `table.multi-dml-sync`: > > - take effect for `executeMultiSql` and sql client > > - benefit: SQL script portability > > - drawback: It's confused when the sql script has one dml statement but > > need to set option `table.multi-dml-sync` > > > > `client.dml-sync`: > > - take effect for sql client only > > - benefit: clear definition. > > - drawback: Every platform needs to define its own option. Bad SQL script > > portability. > > > > Just as Jark said, I think the `table.dml-sync` is a good choice if we > can > > extend its scope and make this option works for `executeSql`. > > It's straightforward and users can use this option now in table api. The > > drawback is the `TableResult#await` plays the same role as the option. > I > > don't think the drawback is really critical because many systems have > > commands play the same role with the different names. > > > > Best, > > Shengkai > > > > Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> 于2021年2月25日周四 下午4:23写道： > > > >> The `table.` prefix is meant to be a general option in the table > >> ecosystem. Not necessarily attached to Table API or SQL Client. That's > >> why SQL Client is also located in the `flink-table` module. > >> > >> My main concern is the SQL script portability. Declaring the sync/async > >> behavior will happen in many SQL scripts. And users should be easily > >> switch from SQL Client to some commercial product without the need of > >> changing the script again. > >> > >> Sure, we can change from `sql-client.dml-sync` to `table.dml-sync` later > >> but that would mean introducing future confusion. An app name (what > >> `sql-client` kind of is) should not be part of a config option key if > >> other apps will need the same kind of option. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Timo > >> > >> > >> On 24.02.21 08:59, Jark Wu wrote: > >>>> From my point of view, I also prefer "sql-client.dml-sync", > >>> because the behavior of this configuration is very clear. > >>> Even if we introduce a new config in the future, e.g. `table.dml-sync`, > >>> we can also deprecate the sql-client one. > >>> > >>> Introducing a "table." configuration without any implementation > >>> will confuse users a lot, as they expect it should take effect on > >>> the Table API. > >>> > >>> If we want to introduce an unified "table.dml-sync" option, I prefer > >>> it should be implemented on Table API and affect all the DMLs on > >>> Table API (`tEnv.executeSql`, `Table.executeInsert`, `StatementSet`), > >>> as I have mentioned before [1]. > >>> > >>>> It would be very straightforward that it affects all the DMLs on SQL > CLI > >>> and > >>> TableEnvironment (including `executeSql`, `StatementSet`, > >>> `Table#executeInsert`, etc.). > >>> This can also make SQL CLI easy to support this configuration by > passing > >>> through to the TableEnv. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Jark > >>> > >>> > >>> [1]: > >>> > >> > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-163-SQL-Client-Improvements-tp48354p48665.html > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 10:39, Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> If we all agree the option should only be handled by sql client, then > >> why > >>>> don't we > >>>> just call it `sql-client.dml-sync`? As you said, calling it > >>>> `table.dml-sync` but has no > >>>> affection in `TableEnv.executeSql("INSERT INTO")` will also cause a > big > >>>> confusion for > >>>> users. > >>>> > >>>> The only concern I saw is if we introduce > >>>> "TableEnvironment.executeMultiSql()" in the > >>>> future, how do we control the synchronization between statements? TBH > I > >>>> don't really > >>>> see a strong requirement for such interfaces. Right now, we have a > >> pretty > >>>> clear semantic > >>>> of `TableEnv.executeSql`, and it's very convenient for users if they > >> want > >>>> to execute multiple > >>>> sql statements. They can simulate either synced or async execution > with > >>>> this building block. > >>>> > >>>> This will introduce slight overhead for users, but compared to the > >>>> confusion we might > >>>> cause if we introduce such a method of our own, I think it's better to > >> wait > >>>> for some more > >>>> feedback. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Kurt > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:45 PM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Kurt, > >>>>> > >>>>> we can also shorten it to `table.dml-sync` if that would help. Then > it > >>>>> would confuse users that do a regular `.executeSql("INSERT INTO")` > in a > >>>>> notebook session. > >>>>> > >>>>> In any case users will need to learn the semantics of this option. > >>>>> `table.multi-dml-sync` should be described as "If a you are in a > multi > >>>>> statement environment, execute DMLs synchrounous.". I don't have a > >>>>> strong opinion on shortening it to `table.dml-sync`. > >>>>> > >>>>> Just to clarify the implementation: The option should be handled by > the > >>>>> SQL Client only, but the name can be shared accross platforms. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Timo > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 23.02.21 09:54, Kurt Young wrote: > >>>>>> Sorry for the late reply, but I'm confused by > `table.multi-dml-sync`. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IIUC this config will take effect with 2 use cases: > >>>>>> 1. SQL client, either interactive mode or executing multiple > >> statements > >>>>> via > >>>>>> -f. In most cases, > >>>>>> there will be only one INSERT INTO statement but we are controlling > >> the > >>>>>> sync/async behavior > >>>>>> with "*multi-dml*-sync". I think this will confuse a lot of users. > >>>>> Besides, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. TableEnvironment#executeMultiSql(), but this is future work, we > are > >>>>> also > >>>>>> not sure if we will > >>>>>> really introduce this in the future. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would prefer to introduce this option for only sql client. For > >>>>> platforms > >>>>>> Timo mentioned which > >>>>>> need to control such behavior, I think it's easy and flexible to > >>>>> introduce > >>>>>> one on their own. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> Kurt > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 10:23 AM Shengkai Fang <fskm...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi everyone. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sorry for the late response. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For `execution.runtime-mode`, I think it's much better than > >>>>>>> `table.execution.mode`. Thanks for Timo's suggestions! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For `SHOW CREATE TABLE`, I'm +1 with Jark's comments. We should > >>>> clarify > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> usage of the SHOW CREATE TABLE statements. It should be allowed to > >>>>> specify > >>>>>>> the table that is fully qualified and only works for the table that > >> is > >>>>>>> created by the sql statements. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have updated the FLIP with suggestions. It seems we have reached > a > >>>>>>> consensus, I'd like to start a formal vote for the FLIP. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please vote +1 to approve the FLIP, or -1 with a comment. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> Shengkai > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> 于2021年2月15日周一 下午10:50写道： > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Ingo, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1) I think you are right, the table path should be > fully-qualified. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2) I think this is also a good point. The SHOW CREATE TABLE > >>>>>>>> only aims to print DDL for the tables registered using SQL CREATE > >>>> TABLE > >>>>>>>> DDL. > >>>>>>>> If a table is registered using Table API, e.g. > >>>>>>>> `StreamTableEnvironment#createTemporaryView(String, DataStream)`, > >>>>>>>> currently it's not possible to print DDL for such tables. > >>>>>>>> I think we should point it out in the FLIP. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 21:33, Ingo Bürk <i...@ververica.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I have a couple questions about the SHOW CREATE TABLE statement. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1) Contrary to the example in the FLIP I think the returned DDL > >>>> should > >>>>>>>>> always have the table identifier fully-qualified. Otherwise the > DDL > >>>>>>>> depends > >>>>>>>>> on the current context (catalog/database), which could be > >>>> surprising, > >>>>>>>>> especially since "the same" table can behave differently if > created > >>>> in > >>>>>>>>> different catalogs. > >>>>>>>>> 2) How should this handle tables which cannot be fully > >> characterized > >>>>> by > >>>>>>>>> properties only? I don't know if there's an example for this yet, > >>>> but > >>>>>>>>> hypothetically this is not currently a requirement, right? This > >>>> isn't > >>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> much of a problem if this syntax is SQL-client-specific, but if > >> it's > >>>>>>>>> general Flink SQL syntax we should consider this (one way or > >>>> another). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>> Ingo > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:53 PM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Shengkai, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> thanks for updating the FLIP. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I have one last comment for the option `table.execution.mode`. > >>>> Should > >>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>> already use the global Flink option `execution.runtime-mode` > >>>> instead? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We are using Flink's options where possible (e.g. ` > pipeline.name` > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> `parallism.default`) why not also for batch/streaming mode? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The description of the option matches to the Blink planner > >>>> behavior: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ``` > >>>>>>>>>> Among other things, this controls task scheduling, network > shuffle > >>>>>>>>>> behavior, and time semantics. > >>>>>>>>>> ``` > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>>> Timo > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 10.02.21 06:30, Shengkai Fang wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, guys. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I have updated the FLIP. It seems we have reached agreement. > >>>> Maybe > >>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>> start the vote soon. If anyone has other questions, please > leave > >>>>>>> your > >>>>>>>>>>> comments. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Best， > >>>>>>>>>>> Shengkai > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Rui Li <lirui.fu...@gmail.com>于2021年2月9日 周二下午7:52写道： > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The conclusion sounds good to me. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:39 PM Shengkai Fang < > fskm...@gmail.com > >>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards! > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rui Li > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >
