Review request

Hi everyone, Is there anyone available to review this PR (1) that I opened 1,5 month ago ? People I've pinged seem to be unavailable at the moment. Thanks [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23443 Best Etienne

Code Review Request

Could anyone help me review the changes？Thank you~ Here is the JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-28910 Here is the PR: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/20542

Re: PR Review Request

Please ignore me. I originally wanted to send it to calcite's dev mail list, but I sent it to the wrong mail list. I'm terribly sorry. Jing Zhang 于2022年1月26日周三 14:55写道： > Hi community, > My apologies for interrupting. > Anyone could help to review the pr >

PR Review Request

Hi community, My apologies for interrupting. Anyone could help to review the pr https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2606? Thanks a lot. CALCITE-4865 is the first sub-task of CALCITE-4864. This Jira aims to extend existing Table function in order to support Polymorphic Table Function which is

Re: [Proposal] CEP library changes - review request

Thank you, Kostas, for reviewing this. Although points 1 and 3 are something which I was planning to address in the actual implementation, #2 would still be a show stopper. I'll spend some more time on this and maybe come up with a better way to achieve the same use case without mixing the two

Re: [Proposal] CEP library changes - review request

Hi Shailesh, Your solution may fit your use case, but as Dawid mentioned earlier, it makes a lot of assumptions about the input. From a look at your PoC: 1) You assume no late data (you do not drop anything) and no out-of-orderness. 2) You mix the two notions of time (event and processing).

Re: [Proposal] CEP library changes - review request

Bump. On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Shailesh Jain wrote: > To trigger the computations for each batch, I'll have to use the > processing time timer in the abstract keyed cep operator, right? > > The reason why I'm avoiding the watermarks is that it is not

Re: [Proposal] CEP library changes - review request

To trigger the computations for each batch, I'll have to use the processing time timer in the abstract keyed cep operator, right? The reason why I'm avoiding the watermarks is that it is not possible to generate watermarks per key. Thanks for the 'within' remark. A couple of questions: 1.

Re: [Proposal] CEP library changes - review request

If you do the buffering you can emit watermark for each such batch (equal to highest timestamp in such batch). This way you won’t need to sort. CEP library will do it for you. The within clause will work in EventTime then. One more remark also the within clause always work for whole pattern not

Re: [Proposal] CEP library changes - review request

Hi Shailesh, Thanks for your interest in the CEP library and sorry for late response. I must say I am not fun of this approach. After this change, the Processing time is no longer a processing time, plus it will work differently in any other place of Flink. It will also not sort the events

Re: [Proposal] CEP library changes - review request

Thanks Aljoscha. Bump. I understand everyone would be busy with 1.5.0, but would really appreciate slight help in unblocking us here. Thanks, Shailesh On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > Hi, > > I think this should have been sent to the dev mailing

Re: [Proposal] CEP library changes - review request

Hi, I think this should have been sent to the dev mailing list because in the user mailing list it might disappear among a lot of other mail. Forwarding... Best, Aljoscha > On 14. Mar 2018, at 06:20, Shailesh Jain wrote: > > Hi, > > We've been facing issues*