+1, sounds reasonable to me Thanks, Matyas
On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 11:28 AM Rodrigo Meneses <rmene...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi devs, > > > I’d like to start a discussion about the current and future state of our > Flink Sink Connectors. > > > As it stands today, we currently have 3 sink implementations: > > 1. FlinkSink [1] > 2. IcebergSink [2] > 3. DynamicSink [3] > > > FlinkSink [1] is the current and default implementation of the Flink Sink > Connector. > > > IcebergSink [2] is another implementation of the Flink Sink Connector > which was introduced in https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10179. > <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10179> It leverages the latest > SinkV2 interfaces in Flink, and it offers the possibility of adding cleanup > tasks by the way of implementing the `PostCommitTopology` interface. There > is already some work in progress to enable this functionality: > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12979 > > > DynamicSink [3] has been recently contributed in > https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/13304 and it can be used to write > to any number of tables, dynamically creating and updating tables and > dynamically updating the schema and partition spec of tables. > > > Currently, `IcebergSink` is marked as `@Experimental` and it already > offers feature parity with `FlinkSink` (the missing RANGE distribution was > recently merged https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12071). > > > With https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11244, users have the choice > of specifying which Sink Implementation ([1] or [2]) they want to use for > Flink SQL. > > > With all this said, we’re proposing the following for Iceberg* 1.11*: > > 1. @Deprecate FlinkSink > 2. Promote IcebergSink from @Experimental to @PublicEvolving > 3. Make IcebergSink the default implementation in Flink SQL. > > > Then in Iceberg *1.12* we will: > > > > 1. Remove the `FlinkSink` implementation. > 2. Remove @PublicEvolving from IcebergSink > > > What do you think about this plan? > > > Thanks, > > Rodrigo > >
