Thanks for all the feedback, if there are no more questions, I will initiate a vote later.
Best, Fang Yong On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:52 PM xiangyu feng <xiangyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Yong, > > I see your point now. The overall design LGTM. > > Besides the support for region failover, we can also consider how to > support regional committer in the future. Each region can advance its data > commitment mutually independent. This will also bring great value. > > Best, > Xiangyu > > Jingsong Li <jingsongl...@gmail.com> 于2025年2月12日周三 22:25写道： > > > Thanks Yong for the explanation. > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > > Best, > > Jingsong > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 6:06 PM Yunfeng Zhou > > <flink.zhouyunf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Yong, > > > > > > > It is necessary to create a Paimon > > > snapshot, and compaction may even be triggered. Therefore, asynchronous > > > threads should be considered for these operations to avoid blocking the > > > main thread of the JM. > > > > > > This statement sounds like it would be JM to perform the compaction, > > regardless of sync or async. AFAIK, it should be writer operators to do > the > > compact, so JM need not consider this kind of overhead. > > > > > > Just a correction on a possible misunderstanding. The design and > > response itself sounds good to me. > > > > > > Best, > > > Yunfeng > > > > > > > 2025年2月11日 16:55，Yong Fang <zjur...@gmail.com> 写道： > > > > > > > > It is necessary to create a Paimon > > > > snapshot, and compaction may even be triggered. Therefore, > asynchronous > > > > threads should be considered for these operations to avoid blocking > the > > > > main thread of the JM. > > > > > >
