[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16106669#comment-16106669 ]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-7213: --------------------------------------- Github user StefanRRichter commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4353 I think that idea is problematic because in the rescaling case, all the collections can have different sizes. For example there can be 5 managed keyed state handles and 7 managed operator state handles and zero state handles for the raw state. Then how would you split that up between the `OperatorSubtaskStates` in your set? Like this, `OperatorSubtaskState` contains the complete state for an operator subtask which I think is a good thing. Also maybe at some point there *might* be a reason to report more than one handle already on snapshotting. > Introduce state management by OperatorID in TaskManager > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: FLINK-7213 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7213 > Project: Flink > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: State Backends, Checkpointing > Affects Versions: 1.4.0 > Reporter: Stefan Richter > Assignee: Stefan Richter > > Flink-5892 introduced the job manager / checkpoint coordinator part of > managing state on the operator level instead of the task level by introducing > explicit operator_id -> state mappings. However, this explicit mapping was > not introduced in the task manager side, so the explicit mapping is still > converted into a mapping that suits the implicit operator chain order. > We should also introduce explicit operator ids to state management on the > task manager. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)