vinothchandar commented on pull request #3285:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/3285#issuecomment-894475193
Thanks. @codope and @bvaradar are looking into backwards incompatible
schema evolution already. So we can turn this on for spark and flink be default
in the next release
vinothchandar commented on pull request #3285:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/3285#issuecomment-893991056
>For existing tables, this will cause issues with schema evol? or we only
do. it for new tables?
Then it will break if someone upgrades from 0.8.0 to 0.9.0 on an
vinothchandar commented on pull request #3285:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/3285#issuecomment-892123167
@swuferhong @danny0405 is this ready for review?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
vinothchandar commented on pull request #3285:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/3285#issuecomment-888749576
False - we can turn it on next release, after also hardening the end-to-end
use case.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the
vinothchandar commented on pull request #3285:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/3285#issuecomment-888735362
Folks, @bvaradar and @codope are already looking into ' supporting such
evolution. I suggest we do this in the next release without breaking existing
tables. If we want to
vinothchandar commented on pull request #3285:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/3285#issuecomment-885764276
@codope please help me close out the schema evolution story here.
my point was: when mixing old files where _hoodie_operation is NOT present
with new files where it
