+1 Let's go straight to the right behavior. Drop the option for the wrong behavior.
Best, Jingsong On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 4:29 PM Timo Walther <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Leonard, > > I'm fine with dropping the old buggy behavior immediatly. Users can > still implement a UDF with the old bavhior if needed. I hope the new > functions will be well-tested so that a fallback to the old functions is > not necessary as a workaround. It will definitely avoid confusion for > users and avoid spaghetti code in the planner module. > > Regards, > Timo > > On 09.03.21 08:14, Kurt Young wrote: > > Hi Leonard, > > > > Thanks for this careful consideration. Given the fallback option will > > eventually change the behavior twice, which means > > potentially break user's job twice, I would also +1 to not introduce it. > > > > Best, > > Kurt > > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:00 PM Leonard Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, all > >> > >> As the FLIP-162 discussed, we agreed current time functions’ behavior > is > >> incorrect and plan to introduce the option > *t**able.exec.fallback-legacy-time-function > >> *to enable user fallback to incorrect behavior. > >> > >> (1) The option is convenient for users who want to upgrade to 1.13 but > >> don't want to change their sql job, user need to config the option > value, *this > >> is the first time users influenced by these wrong functions.* > >> > >> (2) But we didn’t consider that the option will be deleted after one or > >> two major versions, users have to change their sql job again at that > time > >> point, *this the second time** users influenced by these wrong > functions.* > >> > >> (3) Besides, maintaining two sets of functions is prone to bugs. > >> > >> I’ve discussed with some community developers offline, they tend to > solve > >> these functions at once i.e. Correct the wrong functions directly and do > >> not introduce this option. > >> > >> Considering that we will delete the configuration eventually, comparing > >> hurting users twice and bothering them for a long time, I would rather > hurt > >> users once. > >> *Thus I also +1* that we should directly correct these wrong functions > >> and remove the wrong functions at the same time. > >> > >> > >> If we can make a consensus in this thread, I think we can remove this > >> option support in FLIP-162. > >> How do you think? > >> > >> Best, > >> Leonard > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- Best, Jingsong Lee
