Thanks a lot for your replies!
Yes, feedback is very much appreciated! Especially regarding the approach
in general.
I think that's a good idea to discuss some details in the follow-up docs or
tickets (but I'd be happy to discuss it here as well).
As for the PoC, I hope we'll publish it soon
Big +1 onto this FLIP!
Great to see it is stepping forward since this idea is discussed for quite
a while. :-)
1. I totally agree that the critical part is the overhead added during
normal state updates (forward additional state updates to log as well as
state updates itself). Once we have this
+1 to this FLIP in general.
I like the general idea very much (full disclosure, have been involved in
the discussions and drafting of the design for a while, so I am not a
new/neutral reviewer here).
One thing I would like to see us do here, is reaching out to users early
with this, and
Hi Roman,
+1 from my side on this proposal. Also big +1 for the recent changes in
this FLIP in the motivation and high level overview sections.
For me there are quite a bit of unanswered things around how to actually
implement the proposed changes and especially how to integrate it with the
Hi devs,
I'd like to start a discussion of FLIP-158: Generalized incremental
checkpoints [1]
FLIP motivation:
Low end-to-end latency is a much-demanded property in many Flink setups.
With exactly-once, this latency depends on checkpoint interval/duration
which in turn is defined by the slowest
