kbendick commented on a change in pull request #3258:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/3258#discussion_r725531191
##########
File path:
flink/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/sink/IcebergFilesCommitter.java
##########
@@ -282,9 +281,14 @@ private void commitDeltaTxn(NavigableMap<Long,
WriteResult> pendingResults, Stri
// txn2, the equality-delete files of txn2 are required to be applied
to data files from txn1. Committing the
// merged one will lead to the incorrect delete semantic.
Review comment:
Given the comment tat retries may push deletes further in the future,
should we possibly reword this comment here?
It states that `for the sequential transaction txn1 and txn2, the
equality-delete files of txn2 are required to be applied to data files from
txn1`.
If equality-deletes could get pushed out further due to retries and other
scenarios, would it be more appropriate for the above comment to read something
like `equality-delete files of transaction N are required to be applied to data
files from transactions strictly prior to N`? There's probably a better way to
phrase it, but the above comment seems to still imply that equality delete
files need to be applied strictly in the next transaction.
--
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
