-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.9k
[FLINK-39436][table] Allow late data in PTFs #27935
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f01d2fd
[FLINK-39436][table] Allow late data in PTFs
fhueske 7410d18
[FLINK-39436][table] Address reviewer comments
fhueske dd8d9ff
[FLINK-39436][table] Address comments #2
fhueske 521b017
[FLINK-39436][table] Add PTF restore test with late data
fhueske File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Explicitly warning in Javadoc that 'unconditionally re-registering a past-time timer from within
onTimer()causes an infinite loop';Is it necessary to consider adding protection, such as adding detection logic.
Alternatively, it may be necessary to add this infinite loop error test in the test, such as adding the timer for 'alice-again' in LateTimersFunction # eval
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the same behavior as for other functions with access to timers such as KeyedProcessFunction.
Before this change, we ignored the registrations of timers with a timestamp < current_watermark, which is inconsistent with Flink's other functions and surprising for Flink users.
We might be able to introduce guards against such behavior, but I don't think it is necessary. I don't think this is a common problem and adding logic to detect and prevent such logic would cause more problems than it solves.