The operator might call dispose on an old savepoint that’s true, but I am not sure if the dispose api call would actually corrupt it.
Gyula On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 at 09:28, Alexis Sarda-Espinosa < sarda.espin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Hangxiang, > > but, if I understand correctly, setting restore mode to CLAIM means that > the job might create a new incremental checkpoint based on the savepoint, > right? And if the operator then decides to clean up the savepoint, the > checkpoint would be corrupted, no? > > Regards, > Alexis. > > Am Mo., 28. Nov. 2022 um 05:17 Uhr schrieb Hangxiang Yu < > master...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi, Alexis. >> IIUC, There is no conflict between savepoint history and restore mode. >> Restore mode cares about whether/how we manage the savepoint of old job. >> Savepoint management in operator only cares about savepoint history of >> new job. >> In other words, savepoint cleanup should not clean the savepoint from the >> old job which should only be controlled by restore mode. >> So I think you could also set restore mode according to your needs. >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:41 PM Alexis Sarda-Espinosa < >> sarda.espin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Is there a recommended configuration for the restore mode of jobs >>> managed by the operator? >>> >>> Since the documentation states that the operator keeps a savepoint >>> history to perform cleanup, I imagine restore mode should always be >>> NO_CLAIM, but I just want to confirm. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alexis. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best, >> Hangxiang. >> >
