voonhous commented on code in PR #8418:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/8418#discussion_r1162333501
##########
hudi-flink-datasource/hudi-flink/src/test/java/org/apache/hudi/sink/cluster/ITTestHoodieFlinkClustering.java:
##########
@@ -419,4 +425,179 @@ public void
testHoodieFlinkClusteringScheduleAfterArchive() throws Exception {
.stream().anyMatch(fg -> fg.getSlices()
.stream().anyMatch(s ->
s.getDataFilePath().contains(firstClusteringInstant))));
}
+
+ /**
+ * Test to ensure that creating a table with a column of TIMESTAMP(9) will
throw errors
+ * @throws Exception
+ */
+ @Test
+ public void testHoodieFlinkClusteringWithTimestampNanos() {
+ // create hoodie table and insert into data
Review Comment:
Let's not digress too much from the crux of the issue...
The issue here is: TIMESTAMP(6) in STREAM mode is writing INT64, while
TIMESTAMP(6) in APPEND mode is writing INT64.
Let's aim to fix that in this PR first.
## TIMESTAMP(9)
As for TIMESTAMP(9) types, there is currently no support for it AT ALL. If
you try to create a table under any mode with TIMESTAMP(9) type, an error will
be thrown when u try writing to the table regardless of APPEND / STREAM mode.
As such, regression is not a concern here given that we do not support
TIMESTAMP(9) to begin with. The premise here is that TIMESTAMP(6) is writing
the wrong physical type to parquet. That' about it...
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
