Hi, guys. I have updated the FLIP. It seems we have reached agreement. Maybe we can start the vote soon. If anyone has other questions, please leave your comments.
Best， Shengkai Rui Li <lirui.fu...@gmail.com>于2021年2月9日 周二下午7:52写道： > Hi guys, > > The conclusion sounds good to me. > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:39 PM Shengkai Fang <fskm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, Timo, Jark. > > > > I am fine with the new option name. > > > > Best, > > Shengkai > > > > Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org>于2021年2月9日 周二下午5:35写道： > > > > > Yes, `TableEnvironment#executeMultiSql()` can be future work. > > > > > > @Rui, Shengkai: Are you also fine with this conclusion? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Timo > > > > > > On 09.02.21 10:14, Jark Wu wrote: > > > > I'm fine with `table.multi-dml-sync`. > > > > > > > > My previous concern about "multi" is that DML in CLI looks like > single > > > > statement. > > > > But we can treat CLI as a multi-line accepting statements from > opening > > to > > > > closing. > > > > Thus, I'm fine with `table.multi-dml-sync`. > > > > > > > > So the conclusion is `table.multi-dml-sync` (false by default), and > we > > > will > > > > support this config > > > > in SQL CLI first, will support it in > TableEnvironment#executeMultiSql() > > > in > > > > the future, right? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jark > > > > > > > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 16:37, Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi everyone, > > > >> > > > >> I understand Rui's concerns. `table.dml-sync` should not apply to > > > >> regular `executeSql`. Actually, this option makes only sense when > > > >> executing multi statements. Once we have a > > > >> `TableEnvironment.executeMultiSql()` this config could be > considered. > > > >> > > > >> Maybe we can find a better generic name? Other platforms will also > > need > > > >> to have this config option, which is why I would like to avoid a SQL > > > >> Client specific option. Otherwise every platform has to come up with > > > >> this important config option separately. > > > >> > > > >> Maybe `table.multi-dml-sync` `table.multi-stmt-sync`? Or other > > opinions? > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Timo > > > >> > > > >> On 09.02.21 08:50, Shengkai Fang wrote: > > > >>> Hi, all. > > > >>> > > > >>> I think it may cause user confused. The main problem is we have no > > > means > > > >>> to detect the conflict configuration, e.g. users set the option > true > > > and > > > >>> use `TableResult#await` together. > > > >>> > > > >>> Best, > > > >>> Shengkai. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards! > Rui Li >
