Hi Piotr, Thanks a lot for starting the discussion. Big +1.
In my understanding, this FLIP introduces the snapshot format as a *really* user facing concept. IMO it is important that we document a) that it is not longer the checkpoint/savepoint characteristics that determines the kind of changes that a snapshots allows (user code, state schema evolution, topology changes), but now this becomes a property of the format regardless of whether this is a snapshots or a checkpoint b) the exact changes that each format allows (code, state schema, topology, state backend, max parallelism) In this context: will the native format support state schema evolution? If not, I am not sure, we can let the format default to native. Thanks, Konstantin On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:09 PM Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi devs, > > I would like to start a discussion about a previously announced follow up > of the FLIP-193 [1], namely allowing savepoints to be in native format and > incremental. The changes do not seem invasive. The full proposal is > written down as FLIP-203: Incremental savepoints [2]. Please take a look, > and let me know what you think. > > Best, > Piotrek > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-193%3A+Snapshots+ownership > [2] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-203%3A+Incremental+savepoints#FLIP203:Incrementalsavepoints-Semantic > -- Konstantin Knauf https://twitter.com/snntrable https://github.com/knaufk
