Hi Xingcan, Thanks for the question.
My intent is to keep EARLY_FIRE as a generic early-emission hint name, while defining and implementing its behavior in FLIP-497 only for SQL interval joins. The reason I'd rather not rename it to something interval-join-specific is that the core concepts in the hint, e.g. delay and time_mode, aren't inherently tied to interval joins. They could naturally be reused by future emit-capable join operators, such as window joins. For the scope of FLIP-497: EARLY_FIRE is a SQL join hint and is implemented only for interval joins. Window-aggregate early fire stays config-based, so there's no collision there. If we later add early-fire support for other join-family operators like window joins, that would be handled in a separate FLIP, but I'd expect the same hint name to remain the natural fit as long as the behavior follows the same early-emission/correction model. Given that, a narrower name like INTERVAL_JOIN_EARLY_FIRE feels a bit too specific. Does this address your concern? I'm open to renaming it before the vote, but my current preference is to keep EARLY_FIRE and clarify the scope. Thanks, Weiqing On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 5:00 PM Xingcan Cui <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Weiqing, > > Thanks for picking this back up! > > I only have one question: do you think we will reuse the hint `EARLY_FIRE` > for other operators and control the behahvior of them? If not, maybe we > should give it a more specific name. > > Best, > Xingcan > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 2:41 PM Weiqing Yang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for taking another look and +1, Xuyang. > > I'll leave the thread open a couple more days for any further comments, > and > > if there are no further concerns I'll start a VOTE. > > > > Best, > > Weiqing > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 1:27 AM Xuyang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, Weiqing. > > > Thanks for restarting this FLIP. Compared to the previous version, the > > > overall approach looks largely unchanged. +1. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best！ > > > Xuyang > > > > > > > > > > > > 在 2026-07-06 14:13:22，"Weiqing Yang" <[email protected]> 写道： > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > >Gentle bump on this — I'd love another round of eyes before moving to > a > > > >vote. > > > > > > > >The proposal is the same as before at a high level; what's new is that > > the > > > >design has been re-aligned with current master, and the implementation > > now > > > >targets the latest master branch. > > > > > > > >@Xuyang, @Xingcan, @Becket — thank you for the thorough review last > > time. > > > >Since you already know this proposal well, I'd really appreciate a > quick > > > >check that the points you raised still sit right in the current > version. > > > > > > > >FLIP doc: > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YobpNdnvzSsceniVj4NZWi445gb1-54Rox-D7nPArZo/edit > > > > > > > >Feedback is very welcome! > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > >Weiqing > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
