wuchong opened a new pull request #12882:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/12882
<!--
*Thank you very much for contributing to Apache Flink - we are happy that
you want to help us improve Flink. To help the community review your
contribution in the best possible way, please go through the checklist below,
which will get the contribution into a shape in which it can be best reviewed.*
*Please understand that we do not do this to make contributions to Flink a
hassle. In order to uphold a high standard of quality for code contributions,
while at the same time managing a large number of contributions, we need
contributors to prepare the contributions well, and give reviewers enough
contextual information for the review. Please also understand that
contributions that do not follow this guide will take longer to review and thus
typically be picked up with lower priority by the community.*
## Contribution Checklist
- Make sure that the pull request corresponds to a [JIRA
issue](https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/FLINK/issues). Exceptions are
made for typos in JavaDoc or documentation files, which need no JIRA issue.
- Name the pull request in the form "[FLINK-XXXX] [component] Title of the
pull request", where *FLINK-XXXX* should be replaced by the actual issue
number. Skip *component* if you are unsure about which is the best component.
Typo fixes that have no associated JIRA issue should be named following
this pattern: `[hotfix] [docs] Fix typo in event time introduction` or
`[hotfix] [javadocs] Expand JavaDoc for PuncuatedWatermarkGenerator`.
- Fill out the template below to describe the changes contributed by the
pull request. That will give reviewers the context they need to do the review.
- Make sure that the change passes the automated tests, i.e., `mvn clean
verify` passes. You can set up Azure Pipelines CI to do that following [this
guide](https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Azure+Pipelines#AzurePipelines-Tutorial:SettingupAzurePipelinesforaforkoftheFlinkrepository).
- Each pull request should address only one issue, not mix up code from
multiple issues.
- Each commit in the pull request has a meaningful commit message
(including the JIRA id)
- Once all items of the checklist are addressed, remove the above text and
this checklist, leaving only the filled out template below.
**(The sections below can be removed for hotfixes of typos)**
-->
## What is the purpose of the change
Currently, the update statement from `JdbcDialect` is always broken, because
fields will be bound multiple times and this is not supported in the Jdbc
source/sinks.
We introudced a `FieldNamedPreparedStatement` support fields are bound
multiple times in update statement. Users can use `:name` to reference a value
of `name` field, instead of using `?`. So that, users can reference a same
field in the statement multiple times easily. For example, an update statement
will be:
```sql
UPDATE `tbl` SET `id` = :id, `name` = :name, `email` = :email, `ts` = :ts,
`field1` = :field1, `field_2` = :field_2
WHERE `id` = :id
```
## Brief change log
- The first commit 164b4a280cbd1083b87cf0cc887efacd8afeea67 remove the
deprecated classes, this can reduce the amount of changes.
- Introduce `FieldNamedPreparedStatement`, the implementation is simply
mapping the field index to the parameter indexes and forwarding to invoke the
underlying `PreparedStatement`.
- Update the new RowData-based source/sink implementations to use the
`FieldNamedPreparedStatement`.
- We keep the old source/sink implementation as it is, because this requires
a bigger refactoring and the current interface `JdbcStatementBuilder` conflicts
with the `FieldNamedPreparedStatement` interface. So old source/sink connectors
still have the problem of update statement.
## Verifying this change
- Added `FieldNamedPreparedStatementImplTest` to test the field name binding.
- Updated `JdbcDynamicTableSinkITCase#testUpsert` to use a smaller batching
size which can reproduce the problem.
## Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
- Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / **no**)
- The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with
`@Public(Evolving)`: (yes / **no**)
- The serializers: (yes / **no** / don't know)
- The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (yes / **no**
/ don't know)
- Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its
components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (yes / **no** / don't know)
- The S3 file system connector: (yes / **no** / don't know)
## Documentation
- Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / **no**)
- If yes, how is the feature documented? (**not applicable** / docs /
JavaDocs / not documented)
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
