[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7337?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16125817#comment-16125817
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-7337:
---------------------------------------
Github user twalthr commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4532
@wuchong @fhueske I hope I addressed all code related issues. Is it ok to
merge this for now? I will create a follow up issue for the Table to
DataStream/TableSink conversion case.
> whether we should change the rowtime type when it is an existing field
I think this is a very special case. But it is just a nice addition to make
the user's life easier. We could also remove the replacing feature as a whole
to avoid confusion due to the data type conversion. In general, we should get
rid of `TIMESTAMP` and work on longs as much as possible. In the near future,
we might also extend the API to use Java 8 `java.time.` equivalents.
> Refactor handling of time indicator attributes
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-7337
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7337
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Table API & SQL
> Affects Versions: 1.4.0
> Reporter: Fabian Hueske
> Assignee: Fabian Hueske
>
> After a [discussion on the dev mailing
> list|https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/735d55f9022df8ff73566a9f1553e14be94f8443986ad46559b35869@%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E]
> I propose the following changes to the current handling of time indicator
> attributes:
> * Remove the separation of logical and physical row type.
> ** Hold the event-time timestamp as regular Long field in Row
> ** Represent the processing-time indicator type as a null-valued field in Row
> (1 bit overhead)
> * Remove materialization of event-time timestamps because timestamp is
> already accessible in Row.
> * Add {{ProcessFunction}} to set timestamp into the timestamp field of a
> {{StreamRecord}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
