keeps API compatible and make sure the MVP is what we consider clearly.
@Timo, Do you have any other advice or questions on the watermark syntax ?
For example, the builtin strategy name: "BOUNDED WITH OFFSET" VS "OFFSET"
> specific table properties in WITH clause.
> MVP DDL? We can make further discussion after users' feedback.
> format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") "
> constraint already references two columns but types unseen.
> derivation as a follow-up extension ?
> > custom syntax so there is not a real "standard".
> > upfront if they can use an INSERT INTO here or not.
> > making/are on our roadmap for this release.
> > format.schema-file = "/my/avrofile.avsc") ?
> > layer on top of Flink's DDL.
> > and table module . However, I'm wondering about watermark generation.
> > are nested in the schema?
> > 'field-change: add' that I mentioned in the improvements document.
> > computed as well)?
> > the regular schema?
> > > Thank you for the valuable feedbacks.
> > > way, we shouldn't introduce something new.
> > > 1. Scope: Agree.
> > > 2. Constraints: Agree.
> > >    4a. timestamps are in the schema twice.
> > > the real schema is, what's the index of rowtime in the schema?
> > > "replacing the existing column" in runtime.
> > >     4b. how can we write out a timestamp into the message header?
> > > StreamRecord will be write to Kafka message header. What do you think?
> > > in schema part.
> > >      4d. How can people come up with a custom watermark strategy?
> > > can discuss it more depth in the future when we need it.
> > > encountered this requirement in out company.
> > > learning cost for user.
> > >> keywords to enforce permissions.
> > >> file schema and return the data based on table schema.
> > >>    thanks for your feedback.
> > >> agree with you we should focus on the MVP DDL first.
> > >> yes, this can be a follow-up issue.
> > >> and catalogs.
> > >> can be a common case.
> > >> purpose, we can find out other ways.
> > >> friendly for table api not the SQL.
> > >> SQL scenarios.
> > >> can be another topic later.
> > >> convenience, but this is not conflict with the syntax.
> > >> `contract name` like `format.type`, `connector.type` and etc.
> > >> especially one with too many table columns.
> > >>> to combine both Shuyi's design and your design.
> > >>> FUNCTION afterwards as they are not related to each other.
> > >>> follow-up issue once the basic DDL has been merged.
> > >>> write back to the single source of truth.
> > >>> However, there are downsides that we should discuss.
> > >>> either allows to replace an existing column or add a computed column.
> > >>> computed column.
> > >>> new type of UDF?
> > >>> keys (for Hive, Kafka message keys). All part of the table schema?
> > >>> need to manually define a schema with 50+ fields in a Flink DDL.
> > >>> 1. Either the format derives its schema from the table schema.
> > >>> table schema (+ time attributes).
> > >>> incorporate your feedback in  this week.
> > >>>> It's exciting to see we can make such a great progress here.
> > >>>> table schema.
> > >>>> functions and *UserDefinedFunctions* (ScalarFunction).
> > >>>> do we need to support CREATE FUNCTION for `TimestampExtractor`?
> > >>>> but more powerful and standard.
> > >>>> Watermark DDL from my perspective.
> > >>>>> Below are my thoughts.
> > >>>>> properties, so we can use CREATE TABLE.
> > >>>>> later if needed.
> > >>>>> change if needed.
> > >>>>>> the another major difference.
> > >>>>>>> looks good to me.
> > >>>>>>> major obstacles on the way to merge two design proposals FMPOV.
> > >>>>>>>> This doc covers all the features running in Alibaba.
> > >>>>>>>> And we can discuss on the main differences one by one.
> > >>>>>>>> <fhueske@xxxxxxxxx>  give some feedbacks.
> > >>>>>>>>         (a) Should VARCHAR carry a length, e.g. VARCHAR(128) ?
> > >>>>>>>> we know the column is a fixed length VARCHAR.
> > >>>>>>>> just VARCHAR in this version.
> > >>>>>>>> DECIMAL(12, 5)?
> > >>>>>>>> can have some optimization on serialization/deserialization.
> > >>>>>>>> and precision in the future.
> > >>>>>>>> What are the properties on the view used for?
> > >>>>>>>>> differences, and see how far away towards a unified design.
> > >>>>>>>>> experience of SQL_CLI.
> > >>>>>>>>>> can definitely make the Flink SQL DDL better.
> > >>>>>>>>>> make it as a FLIP, and plan the tasks for implementation.
> > >>>>>>>>>> you guys think?
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in the next few days.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> DDL design into a google doc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We can still continue the discussions on Shuyi's proposal.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> on your proposed DDL implementation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> some comments in the doc.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>      Because a table may have more than one rowtime field.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>      one in different situation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> watermarks in one Table.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proctime field named “pt” in the schema.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to working with you guys!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> works well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard compliance.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skipping some featue.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. Beam DDL) easier.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mimics the descriptor API.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort more challenging.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations like windows).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation with the community.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Shuyi, thanks for the proposal.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement DDL parser.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which may not work actually.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, Thanks for the proposal.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Shuyi!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to working with you guys on both!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any feedback is highly appreciated.