Hi Gordon, Thanks for getting back to me. The ticket looks good, but I’m going to need to do something similar for our homegrown sinks. It sounds like just having the affected sinks participate in checkpointing is enough of a solution - is there anything special about `SinkFunction[T]` extending `Checkpointed[S]`, or can I just implement it as I would for e.g. a mapping function?
Thanks, Andrew > On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > Your observations are correct. Like you mentioned, the current problem > circles around how we deal with the pending buffered requests with accordance > to Flink’s checkpointing. > I’ve filed a JIRA for this, as well as some thoughts for the solution in the > description: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5487 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5487>. What do you think? > > Thank you for bringing this up! We should probably fix this soon. > There’s already some on-going effort in fixing some other aspects of proper > at-least-once support in the Elasticsearch sinks, so I believe this will be > brought to attention very soon too. > > Cheers, > Gordon > > > > > On January 11, 2017 at 3:49:06 PM, Andrew Roberts (arobe...@fuze.com > <mailto:arobe...@fuze.com>) wrote: > >> I’m trying to understand the guarantees made by Flink’s Elasticsearch sink >> in terms of message delivery. according to (1), the ES sink offers >> at-least-once guarantees. This page doesn’t differentiate between >> flink-elasticsearch and flink-elasticsearch2, so I have to assume for the >> moment that they both offer that guarantee. However, a look at the code (2) >> shows that the invoke() method puts the record into a buffer, and then that >> buffer is flushed to elasticsearch some time later.
