-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 595
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
fix(sink): derive append only from optimizer when no format declared #14065
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
267fd7a
fix(sink): derive append only from optimizer when no format declared
st1page ef0f8b1
planner test
st1page 8158d8b
allow nont defined force append only
st1page cfab268
allow force append only in with option
st1page 26bb5ab
explain sink type
st1page 713dc0a
apply planner test
st1page f23c224
clippy
st1page 89922a6
fmt
st1page 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
Strictly speaking, this is a backward incompatible change:
NotDefined
was consideredfalse
before this PR, even when frontend derives it is actually append only. It used to returnSinkType::Upsert
in this case. This may or may not be a real problem.One such example:
https://github.com/risingwavelabs/risingwave/blob/main/integration_tests/elasticsearch-sink/create_sink.sql
To list all behavior changes:
SinkType::AppendOnly
SinkType::Upsert
SinkType::AppendOnly
SinkType::ForceAppendOnly
SinkType::Upsert
SinkType::Upsert
(no change)Based on our previous discussion, we wanted to make
format
required if backward compatibility was not a concern. This PR is actually making the backward compatibility promise harder to maintain, asundefined
can now mean AppendOnly/ForceAppendOnly/Upsert in different cases, which used to be always Upsert. cc @tabVersionThere 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.
Thanks for your clarification. If we do not maintain the compatibility for those errored statements, the only change is this one.
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.
In my opinion, it is okay now to move from err to non-err in this PR. However, if we want to move from non-err to err again in the future, it would be a breaking change. This is what I mean by making the backward compatibility promise harder to maintain.