Hi Timo! Thanks for the answers.
Just to give some context here is this thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/08jwrocqyk1q82lnfdldhnyb79m496lp We were considering a PTF like state_metadata("checkpointpath") to create a table with the available state metadata instead of creating a custom connector for reading the metadata. Our thinking was this could completely replace the need for a new connector. But this would only make sense if state_metadata("checkpointpath") could work as a proper table, such as we can make batch operations on it as well. Cheers, Gyula On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 7:39 AM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Gabor, > > great that you already try out PTFs. I'm in the process of writing > documentation for it. Including a list of limitations. > > Please note that PTF won't be support in batch mode in the first phase. > For stateful PTFs we would need to use a batch state backend and also > other code paths around time need to be adjusted. > > Cheers, > Timo > > > On 28.03.25 03:31, Shengkai Fang wrote: > > I think it is by design. You can read the FLIP, it says: > > > > *Time Semantics*: > > > > - > > > > PTFs support event-time semantics only. > > - > > > > Processing-time doesn’t go well with batch mode and thus a unified > API > > should built on event-time. > > The proposed onWatermark timers allow for making processing > nevertheless > > and key-independent. An onWatermark should cover most processing > time use > > cases. > > > > > > But I think if the PTF doesn't implement the `onTime` method, it means > the > > function doesn't care about the time. In this case, we can just > > convert directly in batch mode. > > > > Best, > > Shengkai > > > > Gabor Somogyi <gabor.g.somo...@gmail.com> 于2025年3月28日周五 00:25写道： > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> Seems like the process table function scan operation is not supported in > >> batch mode. > >> Steps to repro [1] which gives the following exception: > >> > >> Caused by: org.apache.flink.table.api.TableException: Unsupported > function > >> for scan:PROCESS_TABLE > >> > >> Is this something which is planned? > >> > >> [1] > >> > >> > https://github.com/gaborgsomogyi/flink/commit/494b297082de718eae16e4e555ed58cefa404676 > >> > >> BR, > >> G > >> > > > >
