Github user kl0u commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3758
@zhangminglei Perfect!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so,
Github user zhangminglei commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3758
@kl0u Yep. I reopened this PR again for waiting you message me. Haha ~
Okay, Now, I will close it and then create another jira and cc you.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user kl0u commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3758
Yes. This sounds good, but you reopened this pull request right? Shouldn't
this be closed?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user zhangminglei commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3758
@kl0u Thanks for review , very appreciate it. Yep, BTW, I would like to
work on what you will thorough the code in the following days and keep watching
this class ```synchronized()```. Hopes
Github user kl0u commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3758
Hi @zhangminglei, thanks for looking into this! I tend to agree with
@tillrohrmann that there is not need for locking there, as there is no sharing
of the data-structure between different threads. The
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3758
Not sure why we're synchronizing on the `pendingFilesPerCheckpoint` field
at all, because it is only the restored state object. Maybe @kl0u can shed some
light on that.
---
If your project is
Github user zhangminglei commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3758
cc @tillrohrmann
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes
