Hi Leonard,
Thank you for the feedback and the improvement.
If there are no further comments or concerns, I would like to initiate a
vote on this.
Best,
Jane
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 9:24 PM Leonard Xu wrote:
> Thanks Jane for the refine work, +1 from my side.
> I adjusted the table format of
Thanks Jane for the refine work, +1 from my side.
I adjusted the table format of FLIP so that it can display all content in one
page.
Best,
Leonard
> 2024年5月22日 下午3:42，Jane Chan 写道：
>
> Hi Lincoln,
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. I've reviewed the comments from the previous PR
> review[1],
Hi Lincoln,
Thanks for your suggestion. I've reviewed the comments from the previous PR
review[1], and the agreement at the time was that any configuration options
not included in ExecutionConfigOptions and OptimizerConfigOptions should
have the Experimental annotation explicitly added. Since this
Hi Jane,
Thanks for the updates!
Just one small comment on the options in IncrementalAggregateRule
& RelNodeBlock, should we also change the API level from Experimental
to PublicEvolving?
Best,
Lincoln Lee
Jane Chan 于2024年5月21日周二 16:41写道：
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for your valuable feedback!
>
>
Hi all,
Thanks for your valuable feedback!
To @Xuannan
For options to be moved to another module/package, I think we have to
> mark the old option deprecated in 1.20 for it to be removed in 2.0,
> according to the API compatibility guarantees[1]. We can introduce the
> new option in 1.20 with th
Hi, Lincoln
> 2. Regarding the options in HashAggCodeGenerator, since this new feature
has gone
through a couple of release cycles and could be considered for
PublicEvolving now,
cc @Ron Liu WDYT?
Thanks for cc'ing me, +1 for public these options now.
Best,
Ron
Benchao Li 于2024年5月20日周一 13:
I agree with Lincoln about the experimental features.
Some of these configurations do not even have proper implementation,
take 'table.exec.range-sort.enabled' as an example, there was a
discussion[1] about it before.
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/q5h3obx36pf9po28r0jzmwnmvtyjmwdr
Lincoln L
Hi Jane,
Thanks for the proposal!
+1 for the changes except for these annotated as experimental ones.
For the options annotated as experimental,
+1 for the moving of IncrementalAggregateRule & RelNodeBlock.
For the rest of the options, there are some suggestions:
1. for the batch related para
Hi Jane,
Thank Jane for driving this proposal !
This makes sense for users, +1 for that.
Best,
Yubin
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 3:17 PM Jark Wu wrote:
>
> Hi Jane,
>
> Thanks for the proposal. +1 from my side.
>
>
> Best,
> Jark
>
> On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 10:28, Xuannan Su wrote:
>
> > Hi Jane,
Hi Jane,
Thanks for the proposal. +1 from my side.
Best,
Jark
On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 10:28, Xuannan Su wrote:
> Hi Jane,
>
> Thanks for driving this effort! And +1 for the proposed changes.
>
> I have one comment on the migration plan.
>
> For options to be moved to another module/package, I
Hi Jane,
Thanks for driving this effort! And +1 for the proposed changes.
I have one comment on the migration plan.
For options to be moved to another module/package, I think we have to
mark the old option deprecated in 1.20 for it to be removed in 2.0,
according to the API compatibility guarant
Hi all,
I'd like to start a discussion on FLIP-457: Improve Table/SQL Configuration
for Flink 2.0 [1]. This FLIP revisited all Table/SQL configurations to
improve user-friendliness and maintainability as Flink moves toward 2.0.
I am looking forward to your feedback.
Best regards,
Jane
[1]
https
12 matches
Mail list logo
