Hi Timo, Thanks for the help! Your comment is fair and shows the proper direction in the mentioned FLIP.
BR, G On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 8:36 AM Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's a very good point, I let Gabor and Shengkai follow up on that > suggestion :) > > Gyula > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 8:30 AM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Gyula, > > > > if I understand the discussion correctly, you want to use a PTF without > > table arguments to return a table (read from savepoint metadata)? If > > this is the case, you don't need a PTF for it. A regular table function > > can also do the job. IIRC we support TVF with constant args. > > > > Cheers, > > Timo > > > > On 28.03.25 08:10, Gyula Fóra wrote: > > > 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 > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >
