Sounds like something we could do in 1.11 then, as part of simplification /
cleanup
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:18 AM Yu Li wrote:
> +1 from my side.
>
> FWIW, shall we also include @user ML into this discussion?
>
> Best Regards,
> Yu
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 15:11, Congxian Qiu wrote:
>
> >
+1 from my side.
FWIW, shall we also include @user ML into this discussion?
Best Regards,
Yu
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 15:11, Congxian Qiu wrote:
> +1 from my side.
>
> Best,
> Congxian
>
>
> Yun Tang 于2019年12月6日周五 下午12:30写道：
>
> > +1 from my side for I did not see any real benefits if using
+1 from my side.
Best,
Congxian
Yun Tang 于2019年12月6日周五 下午12:30写道：
> +1 from my side for I did not see any real benefits if using synchronous
> snapshots.
>
> Moreover, I think we should also remove the support of synchronous
> snapshots in DefaultOpeatorStateBackend and deprecate the config
>
+1 from my side for I did not see any real benefits if using synchronous
snapshots.
Moreover, I think we should also remove the support of synchronous snapshots in
DefaultOpeatorStateBackend and deprecate the config state.backend.async
Best
Yun Tang
On 12/5/19, 8:06 PM, "Stephan Ewen"
Hi all!
I am wondering if there is any case for retaining the option to make
synchronous snapshots on the heap statebackend. Is anyone using that? Or
could we clean that code up and remove it?
Best,
Stephan
