Hi Jark and Shaoxuan, Thanks a lot for the summary. I think we are making great progress here. Below are my thoughts.
*(1) watermark definition IMO, it's better to keep it consistent with the rowtime extractors and watermark strategies defined in https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/table/connect.html#rowtime-attributes. Using built-in functions seems to be too much for most of the common scenarios. *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE Actually, I think we can put the source/sink type info into the table properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE. (3) View DDL with properties We can remove the view properties section now for the MVP and add it back later if needed. (4) Type Definition I agree we can put the type length or precision into future versions. As for the grammar difference, currently, I am using the grammar in Calcite type DDL, but since we'll extend the parser in Flink, so we can definitely change if needed. Shuyi On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:48 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Shaoxuan, > > Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the source/sink tag on create table is > the another major difference. > > Summarize the main differences again: > > *(1) watermark definition > *(2) CREATE SOURCE/SINK TABLE or CREATE TABLE > (3) View DDL with properties > (4) Type Definition > > Best, > Jark > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 14:08, Shaoxuan Wang <wshaox...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Jark, > > Thanks for the summary. Your plan for the 1st round implementation of DDL > > looks good to me. > > Have we reached the agreement on simplifying/unifying "create > [source/sink] > > table" to "create table"? "Watermark definition" and "create table" are > the > > major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV. @Shuyi, > It > > would be great if you can spend time and respond to these two parts > first. > > > > Regards, > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > It seems that you have reviewed the DDL doc [1] that Lin and I drafted. > > > This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba. > > > But some of features might be not needed in the first version of Flink > > SQL > > > DDL. > > > > > > So my suggestion would be to focus on the MVP DDLs and reach agreement > > ASAP > > > based on the DDL draft [1] and the DDL design [2] Shuyi proposed. > > > And we can discuss on the main differences one by one. > > > > > > The following is the MVP DDLs should be included in the first version > in > > my > > > opinion (feedbacks are welcome): > > > (1) Table DDL: > > > (1.1) Type definition > > > (1.2) computed column definition > > > (1.3) watermark definition > > > (1.4) with properties > > > (1.5) table constraint (primary key/unique) > > > (1.6) column nullability (nice to have) > > > (2) View DDL > > > (3) Function DDL > > > > > > The main differences from two DDL docs (sth maybe missed, welcome to > > point > > > out): > > > *(1.3) watermark*: this is the main and the most important difference, > it > > > would be great if @Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> @Fabian Hueske > > > <fhue...@gmail.com> give some feedbacks. > > > (1.1) Type definition: > > > (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ? > > > In most cases, the varchar length is not used because they > are > > > stored as String in Flink. But it can be used to optimize in the future > > if > > > we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR. > > > So IMO, we can support VARCHAR with length in the future, > and > > > just VARCHAR in this version. > > > (b) Should DECIMAL support custom scale and precision, e.g. > > > DECIMAL(12, 5)? > > > If we clearly know the scale and precision of the Decimal, > we > > > can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization. IMO, we > can > > > support just support DECIMAL in this version, > > > which means DECIMAL(38, 18) as default. And support custom > > scale > > > and precision in the future. > > > (2) View DDL: Do we need WITH properties in View DDL (proposed in > > doc[2])? > > > What are the properties on the view used for? > > > > > > > > > The features could be supported and discussed in the future: > > > (1) period definition on table > > > (2) Type DDL > > > (3) Index DDL > > > (4) Library DDL > > > (5) Drop statement > > > > > > [1] Flink DDL draft by Lin and Jark: > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o16jC-AxnZoxMfHQptkKQkSC6ZDDBRhKg6gm8VGnY-k/edit# > > > [2] Flink SQL DDL design by Shuyi: > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit# > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Jark > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:13, Shaoxuan Wang <wshaox...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Sure Shuyu, > > > > What I hope is that we can reach an agreement on DDL gramma as soon > as > > > > possible. There are a few differences between your proposal and ours. > > > Once > > > > Lin and Jark propose our design, we can quickly discuss on the those > > > > differences, and see how far away towards a unified design. > > > > > > > > WRT the external catalog, I think it is an orthogonal topic, we can > > > design > > > > it in parallel. I believe @Xuefu, @Bowen are already working on. We > > > > should/will definitely involve them to review the final design of DDL > > > > implementation. I would suggest that we should give it a higher > > priority > > > on > > > > the DDL implementation, as it is a crucial component for the user > > > > experience of SQL_CLI. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:56 AM Shuyi Chen <suez1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Shaoxuan, Jack and Lin. We should definitely > > collaborate > > > > > here, we have also our own DDL implementation running in production > > for > > > > > almost 2 years at Uber. With the joint experience from both > > companies, > > > we > > > > > can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better. > > > > > > > > > > As @shaoxuan suggest, Jark can come up with a doc that talks about > > the > > > > > current DDL design in Alibaba, and we can discuss and merge them > into > > > > one, > > > > > make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation. Also, we > > > should > > > > > take into account the new external catalog effort in the design. > What > > > do > > > > > you guys think? > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:45 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Shaoxuan, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think summarizing it into a google doc is a good idea. We will > > > > prepare > > > > > it > > > > > > in the next few days. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jark > > > > > > > > > > > > Shaoxuan Wang <wshaox...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午9:17写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lin and Jark, > > > > > > > Thanks for sharing those details. Can you please consider > > > summarizing > > > > > > your > > > > > > > DDL design into a google doc. > > > > > > > We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal. But > > > > having a > > > > > > > separate google doc will be easy for the DEV to > > > > > > understand/comment/discuss > > > > > > > on your proposed DDL implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Shaoxuan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:39 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing up this discussion and the awesome work! > I > > > have > > > > > > left > > > > > > > > some comments in the doc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to share something more about the watermark definition > > > > learned > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > Alibaba. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Table should be able to accept multiple watermark > > definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because a table may have more than one rowtime field. For > > > > example, > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > rowtime field is from existing field but missing in some > > > > records, > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > is the ingestion timestamp in Kafka but not very accurate. > > In > > > > this > > > > > > > case, > > > > > > > > user may define two rowtime fields with watermarks in the > > > Table > > > > > and > > > > > > > > choose > > > > > > > > one in different situation. > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Watermark stragety always work with rowtime field > together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the two points metioned above, I think we should > > combine > > > > the > > > > > > > > watermark strategy and rowtime field selection (i.e. which > > > existing > > > > > > field > > > > > > > > used to generate watermark) in one clause, so that we can > > define > > > > > > multiple > > > > > > > > watermarks in one Table. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here I will share the watermark syntax used in Alibaba > (simply > > > > > > modified): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > watermarkDefinition: > > > > > > > > WATERMARK [watermarkName] FOR <rowtime_field> AS wm_strategy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wm_strategy: > > > > > > > > BOUNDED WITH OFFSET 'string' timeUnit > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > ASCENDING > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The “WATERMARK” keyword starts a watermark definition. The > > “FOR” > > > > > > keyword > > > > > > > > defines which existing field used to generate watermark, this > > > field > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > already exist in the schema (we can use computed-column to > > derive > > > > > from > > > > > > > > other fields). The “AS” keyword defines watermark strategy, > > such > > > as > > > > > > > BOUNDED > > > > > > > > WITH OFFSET (covers almost all the requirements) and > ASCENDING. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the expected rowtime field does not exist in the schema, > > we > > > > can > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > computed-column syntax to derive it from other existing > fields > > > > using > > > > > > > > built-in functions or user defined functions. So the > > > > > rowtime/watermark > > > > > > > > definition doesn’t need to care about “field-change” strategy > > > > > > > > (replace/add/from-field). And the proctime field definition > can > > > > also > > > > > be > > > > > > > > defined using computed-column. Such as pt as PROCTIME() which > > > > > defines a > > > > > > > > proctime field named “pt” in the schema. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to working with you guys! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Jark Wu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lin Li <lincoln.8...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月28日周三 下午6:33写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposal! We have a simple DDL > implementation > > > > > > (extends > > > > > > > > > Calcite's parser) which been running for almost two years > on > > > > > > production > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > works well. > > > > > > > > > I think the most valued things we'd learned is keeping > > > simplicity > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > standard compliance. > > > > > > > > > Here's the approximate grammar, FYI > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE tableName( > > > > > > > > > columnDefinition [, columnDefinition]* > > > > > > > > > [ computedColumnDefinition [, > > > computedColumnDefinition]* > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > [ tableConstraint [, tableConstraint]* ] > > > > > > > > > [ tableIndex [, tableIndex]* ] > > > > > > > > > [ PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME ] > > > > > > > > > [ WATERMARK watermarkName FOR rowTimeColumn AS > > > > > > > > > withOffset(rowTimeColumn, offset) ] ) [ WITH ( > > tableOption > > > [ > > > > , > > > > > > > > > tableOption]* ) ] [ ; ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > columnDefinition ::= > > > > > > > > > columnName dataType [ NOT NULL ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dataType ::= > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > [ VARCHAR ] > > > > > > > > > | [ BOOLEAN ] > > > > > > > > > | [ TINYINT ] > > > > > > > > > | [ SMALLINT ] > > > > > > > > > | [ INT ] > > > > > > > > > | [ BIGINT ] > > > > > > > > > | [ FLOAT ] > > > > > > > > > | [ DECIMAL ] > > > > > > > > > | [ DOUBLE ] > > > > > > > > > | [ DATE ] > > > > > > > > > | [ TIME ] > > > > > > > > > | [ TIMESTAMP ] > > > > > > > > > | [ VARBINARY ] > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > computedColumnDefinition ::= > > > > > > > > > columnName AS computedColumnExpression > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableConstraint ::= > > > > > > > > > { PRIMARY KEY | UNIQUE } > > > > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableIndex ::= > > > > > > > > > [ UNIQUE ] INDEX indexName > > > > > > > > > (columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rowTimeColumn ::= > > > > > > > > > columnName > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tableOption ::= > > > > > > > > > property=value > > > > > > > > > offset ::= > > > > > > > > > positive integer (unit: ms) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE VIEW viewName > > > > > > > > > [ > > > > > > > > > ( columnName [, columnName]* ) > > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > AS queryStatement; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE FUNCTION functionName > > > > > > > > > AS 'className'; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > className ::= > > > > > > > > > fully qualified name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi Chen <suez1...@gmail.com> 于2018年11月28日周三 上午3:28写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Timo and Xuefu. Yes, I think we can > finalize > > > the > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > doc > > > > > > > > > > first and start implementation w/o the unified connector > > API > > > > > ready > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > skipping some featue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xuefu, I like the idea of making Flink specific > properties > > > into > > > > > > > generic > > > > > > > > > > key-value pairs, so that it will make integration with > Hive > > > DDL > > > > > (or > > > > > > > > > others, > > > > > > > > > > e.g. Beam DDL) easier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll run a final pass over the design doc and finalize > the > > > > design > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > next few days. And we can start creating tasks and > > > collaborate > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > implementation. Thanks a lot for all the comments and > > inputs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > > > xuef...@alibaba-inc.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah! I agree with Timo that DDL can actually proceed > w/o > > > > being > > > > > > > > blocked > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > connector API. We can leave the unknown out while > > defining > > > > the > > > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > > syntax. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As commented in the doc, I think we can probably stick > > with > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > > > with general properties, without extending the syntax > too > > > > much > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > mimics the descriptor API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of our effort on Flink-Hive integration is also to > > > make > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > syntax > > > > > > > > > > > compatible with Hive's. The one in the current proposal > > > seems > > > > > > > making > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > > effort more challenging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can help and collaborate. At this moment, I think we > > can > > > > > > > finalize > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > the proposal and then we can divide the tasks for > better > > > > > > > > collaboration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there are any questions or > > > > suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > Sender:Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent at:2018 Nov 27 (Tue) 16:21 > > > > > > > > > > > Recipient:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for offering your help here, Xuefu. It would be > > > great > > > > to > > > > > > > move > > > > > > > > > > > these efforts forward. I agree that the DDL is somehow > > > > releated > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design but we can also start with > > the > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > > > functionality now and evolve the DDL during this > release > > > and > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, we could identify the MVP DDL syntax that > > > skips > > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > > > key constraints and maybe even time attributes. This > DDL > > > > could > > > > > be > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > > for batch usecases, ETL, and materializing SQL queries > > (no > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > operations like windows). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The unified connector API is high on our priority list > > for > > > > the > > > > > > 1.8 > > > > > > > > > > > release. I will try to update the document until mid of > > > next > > > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Timo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 27.11.18 um 08:08 schrieb Shuyi Chen: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Xuefu. I was busy for some other stuff > > for > > > > the > > > > > > > last 2 > > > > > > > > > > > weeks, > > > > > > > > > > > > but we are definitely interested in moving this > > forward. > > > I > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > once > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > unified connector API design [1] is done, we can > > finalize > > > > the > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > well and start creating concrete subtasks to > > collaborate > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation with the community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shuyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM Zhang, Xuefu < > > > > > > > > > xuef...@alibaba-inc.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Shuyi, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I'm wondering if you folks still have the bandwidth > > > > working > > > > > on > > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> We have some dedicated resource and like to move > this > > > > > forward. > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > >> collaborate. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Xuefu > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > >> 发件人：wenlong.lwl<wenlong88....@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 日 期：2018年11月05日 11:15:35 > > > > > > > > > > > >> 收件人：<dev@flink.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Flink SQL DDL Design > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I have two concerns about the table ddl: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. how about remove the source/sink mark from the > ddl, > > > > > because > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > >> necessary, the framework determine the table > referred > > > is a > > > > > > > source > > > > > > > > > or a > > > > > > > > > > > sink > > > > > > > > > > > >> according to the context of the query using the > table. > > > it > > > > > will > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > >> convenient for use defining a table which can be > both > > a > > > > > source > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > sink, > > > > > > > > > > > >> and more convenient for catalog to persistent and > > manage > > > > the > > > > > > > meta > > > > > > > > > > infos. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. how about just keeping one pure string map as > > > > parameters > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > table, > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > >> create tabe Kafka10SourceTable ( > > > > > > > > > > > >> intField INTEGER, > > > > > > > > > > > >> stringField VARCHAR(128), > > > > > > > > > > > >> longField BIGINT, > > > > > > > > > > > >> rowTimeField TIMESTAMP > > > > > > > > > > > >> ) with ( > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.type = ’kafka’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.property-version = ’1’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.version = ’0.10’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.topic = ‘test-kafka-topic’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.startup-mode = ‘latest-offset’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties.specific-offset = ‘offset’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> format.type = 'json' > > > > > > > > > > > >> format.prperties.version=’1’, > > > > > > > > > > > >> format.derive-schema = 'true' > > > > > > > > > > > >> ); > > > > > > > > > > > >> Because: > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. in TableFactory, what user use is a string map > > > > > properties, > > > > > > > > > defining > > > > > > > > > > > >> parameters by string-map can be the closest way to > > > mapping > > > > > how > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > >> parameters. > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. The table descriptor can be extended by user, > like > > > what > > > > > is > > > > > > > done > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > > > >> and Json, it means that the parameter keys in > > connector > > > or > > > > > > > format > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > >> different in different implementation, we can not > > > restrict > > > > > the > > > > > > > key > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > >> specified set, so we need a map in connector scope > > and a > > > > map > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector.properties scope. why not just give user a > > > > single > > > > > > map, > > > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > >> put parameters in a format they like, which is also > > the > > > > > > simplest > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > >> implement DDL parser. > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. whether we can define a format clause or not, > > depends > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > >> implementation of the connector, using different > > clause > > > in > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > >> misunderstanding that we can combine the connectors > > with > > > > > > > arbitrary > > > > > > > > > > > formats, > > > > > > > > > > > >> which may not work actually. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 18:25, Dominik Wosiński < > > > > > > wos...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> +1, Thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I guess this is a long-awaited change. This can > > vastly > > > > > > increase > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > >>> functionalities of the SQL Client as it will be > > > possible > > > > to > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > complex > > > > > > > > > > > >>> extensions like for example those provided by > Apache > > > > > > Bahir[1]. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Dom. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/bahir-flink > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> sob., 3 lis 2018 o 17:17 Rong Rong < > > > walter...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1. Thanks for putting the proposal together > Shuyi. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL has been brought up in a couple of times > > > previously > > > > > > [1,2]. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Utilizing > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> DDL will definitely be a great extension to the > > > current > > > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> systematically support some of the previously > > brought > > > up > > > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > > >> as > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [3]. And it will also be beneficial to see the > > > document > > > > > > > closely > > > > > > > > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with the previous discussion for unified SQL > > connector > > > > API > > > > > > > [4]. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I also left a few comments on the doc. Looking > > forward > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > alignment > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with the other couple of efforts and contributing > to > > > > them! > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Rong > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201805.mbox/%3CCAMZk55ZTJA7MkCK1Qu4gLPu1P9neqCfHZtTcgLfrFjfO4Xv5YQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [2] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3CDC070534-0782-4AFD-8A85-8A82B384B8F7%40gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [3] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8003 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [4] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201810.mbox/%3c6676cb66-6f31-23e1-eff5-2e9c19f88...@apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM Bowen Li < > > > > > > bowenl...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks Shuyi! > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I left some comments there. I think the design of > > SQL > > > > DDL > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Flink-Hive > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration/External catalog enhancements will > work > > > > > closely > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> other. Hope we are well aligned on the directions > > of > > > > the > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > designs, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and I > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both! > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Bowen > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:57 PM Shuyi Chen < > > > > > > > suez1...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL DDL support has been a long-time ask from > the > > > > > > community. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Current > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Flink > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> SQL support only DML (e.g. SELECT and INSERT > > > > > statements). > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> current > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> form, Flink SQL users still need to > define/create > > > > table > > > > > > > > sources > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sinks > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> programmatically in Java/Scala. Also, in SQL > > Client, > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> support, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the current implementation does not allow > > dynamical > > > > > > creation > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > >>> table, > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> type > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> or functions with SQL, this adds friction for > its > > > > > > adoption. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I drafted a design doc [1] with a few other > > > community > > > > > > > members > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> proposes > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the design and implementation for adding DDL > > support > > > > in > > > > > > > Flink. > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> initial > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> design considers DDL for table, view, type, > > library > > > > and > > > > > > > > > function. > > > > > > > > > > > >> It > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be great to get feedback on the design from the > > > > > community, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > >> align > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> latest effort in unified SQL connector API [2] > and > > > > Flink > > > > > > > Hive > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> integration > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3]. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Shuyi Chen > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [1] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [2] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [3] > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SkppRD_rE3uOKSN-LuZCqn4f7dz0zW5aa6T_hBZq5_o/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow > > > > connect > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future." > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect > in > > > > your > > > > > > > > future." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your > > > future." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future."
