You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> on 2021/03/01 07:45:31 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-162: Consistent Flink SQL time function behavior
How about we simply go for your first approach by having [query-start,
row, auto] as configuration parameters where [auto] is the default?
This sounds like a good consensus where everyone is happy, no?
This also allows user to restore the old per-row behavior for all
functions that we had before Flink 1.13.
Regards,
Timo
On 26.02.21 11:10, Leonard Xu wrote:
> Thanks Joe for the great investigation.
>
>
>> • Generally urging for semantics (batch > time of first query issued, streaming > row level).
>> I discussed the thing now with Timo & Stephan:
>> • It seems to go towards a config parameter, either [query-start, row] or [query-start, row, auto] and what is the default?
>> • The main question seems to be: are we pushing the default towards streaming. (probably related the insert into behaviour in the sql client).
>
>
> It looks like opinions in this thread and user inputs agreed that: batch should use time of first query, streaming should use row level.
> Based on these, we should keep row level for streaming and query start for batch just like the config parameter value [auto].
>
> Currently Flink keeps row level for time function in both batch and streaming job, thus we only need to update the behavior in batch.
>
> I tend to not expose an obscure configuration to users especially it is semantics-related.
>
> 1.We can make [auto] as a default agreement，for current Flink streaming users，they feel nothing has changed，for current Flink batch users，they feel Flink batch is corrected to other good batch engines as well as SQL standard. We can also provide a function CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP[1] for Flink batch users who want row level time function.
>
> 2. CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP can also be used in Flink streaming, it has clear semantics, we can encourage users to use it.
>
> In this way, We don’t have to introduce an obscure configuration prematurely while making all users happy
>
> How do you think?
>
> Best,
> Leonard
> [1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kinesisanalytics/latest/sqlref/sql-reference-current-row-timestamp.html
>
>
>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>>> On 19.02.2021, at 10:25, Leonard Xu <xb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Joe
>>>
>>> Thanks for volunteering to investigate the user data on this topic. Do you
>>> have any progress here?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Leonard
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:08 PM Johannes Moser <jo...@data-artisans.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>
>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>
>>>>> A quick thought on this thread: We see a typical stalemate here, as in so
>>>>> many discussions recently.
>>>>> One developer prefers it this way, another one another way. Both have
>>>>> pro/con arguments, it takes a lot of time from everyone, still there is
>>>>> little progress in the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ultimately, this can only be decided by talking to the users. And it
>>>>> would also be the best way to ensure that what we build is the intuitive
>>>>> and expected way for users.
>>>>> The less the users are into the deep aspects of Flink SQL, the better
>>>> they
>>>>> can mirror what a common user would expect (a power user will anyways
>>>>> figure it out).
>>>>> Let's find a person to drive that, spell it out in the FLIP as "semantics
>>>>> TBD", and focus on the implementation of the parts that are agreed upon.
>>>>>
>>>>> For interviewing the users, here are some ideas for questions to look at:
>>>>> - How do they view the trade-off between stable semantics vs.
>>>>> out-of-the-box magic (faster getting started).
>>>>> - How comfortable are they realizing the different meaning of "now()" in
>>>>> a streaming versus batch context.
>>>>> - What would be their expectation when moving a query with the time
>>>>> functions ("now()") from an unbounded stream (Kafka source without end
>>>>> offset) to a bounded stream (Kafka source with end offsets), which may
>>>>> switch execution to batch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Stephan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:19 PM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Fabian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we have an agreement that the functions should be evaluated at
>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>> Because all the other batch systems and traditional databases are this
>>>>>> behavior, which is standard SQL compliant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *1. The different point of view is what's the behavior in streaming
>>>> mode? *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From my point of view, I don't see any potential meaning to evaluate at
>>>>>> query-start for a 365-day long running streaming job.
>>>>>> And from my observation, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is heavily used by Flink
>>>>>> streaming users and they expect the current behaviors.
>>>>>> The SQL standard only provides a guideline for traditional batch
>>>> systems,
>>>>>> however Flink is a leading streaming processing system
>>>>>> which is out of the scope of SQL standard, and Flink should define the
>>>>>> streaming standard. I think a standard should follow users' intuition.
>>>>>> Therefore, I think we don't need to be standard SQL compliant at this
>>>> point
>>>>>> because users don't expect it.
>>>>>> Changing the behavior of the functions to evaluate at query start for
>>>>>> streaming mode will hurt most of Flink SQL users and we have nothing to
>>>>>> gain,
>>>>>> we should avoid this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *2. Does it break the unified streaming-batch semantics? *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think so. First of all, what's the unified streaming-batch
>>>>>> semantic?
>>>>>> I think it means the* eventual result* instead of the *behavior*.
>>>>>> It's hard to say we have provided unified behavior for streaming and
>>>> batch
>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>> because for example unbounded aggregate behaves very differently.
>>>>>> In batch mode, it only evaluates once for the bounded data and emits the
>>>>>> aggregate result once.
>>>>>> But in streaming mode, it evaluates for each row and emits the updated
>>>>>> result.
>>>>>> What we have always emphasized "unified streaming-batch semantics" is
>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a query produces exactly the same result regardless whether its input
>>>> is
>>>>>> static batch data or streaming data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From my understanding, the "semantic" means the "eventual result".
>>>>>> And time functions are non-deterministic, so it's reasonable to get
>>>>>> different results for batch and streaming mode.
>>>>>> Therefore, I think it doesn't break the unified streaming-batch
>>>> semantics
>>>>>> to evaluate per-record for streaming and
>>>>>> query-start for batch, as the semantic doesn't means behavior semantic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]: https://flink.apache.org/news/2017/04/04/dynamic-tables.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 18:34, Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry for joining this discussion late.
>>>>>>> Let me give some thought to two of the arguments raised in this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time functions are inherently non-determintistic:
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> This is of course true, but IMO it doesn't mean that the semantics of
>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> functions do not matter.
>>>>>>> It makes a difference whether a function is evaluated once and it's
>>>>>> result
>>>>>>> is reused or whether it is invoked for every record.
>>>>>>> Would you use the same logic to justify different behavior of RAND() in
>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Provide the semantics that most users expect:
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> I don't think it is clear what most users expect, esp. if we also
>>>> include
>>>>>>> future users (which we certainly want to gain) into this assessment.
>>>>>>> Our current users got used to the semantics that we introduced. So I
>>>>>>> wouldn't be surprised if they would say stick with the current
>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>> However, we are also claiming standard SQL compliance and stress the
>>>> goal
>>>>>>> of batch-stream unification.
>>>>>>> So I would assume that new SQL users expect standard compliant behavior
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO, we should try hard to stick to our goals of 1) unified
>>>>>> batch-streaming
>>>>>>> semantics and 2) SQL standard compliance.
>>>>>>> For me this means that the semantics of the functions should be
>>>> adjusted
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> be evaluated at query start by default for batch and streaming queries.
>>>>>>> Obviously this would affect *many* current users of streaming SQL.
>>>>>>> For those we should provide two solutions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Add alternative methods that provide the current behavior of the
>>>> time
>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>> I like Timo's proposal to add a prefix like SYS_ (or PROC_) but don't
>>>>>> care
>>>>>>> too much about the names.
>>>>>>> The important point is that users need alternative functions to provide
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> desired semantics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Add a configuration option to reestablish the current behavior of
>>>> the
>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>> IMO, the configuration option should not be considered as a permanent
>>>>>>> option but rather as a migration path towards the "right" (standard
>>>>>>> compliant) behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Di., 2. Feb. 2021 um 09:51 Uhr schrieb Kurt Young <ykt836@gmail.com
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW I also don't like to introduce an option for this case at the
>>>>>>>> first step.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we can find a default behavior which can make 90% users happy, we
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> do it. If the remaining
>>>>>>>> 10% percent users start to complain about the fixed behavior (it's
>>>> also
>>>>>>>> possible that they don't complain ever),
>>>>>>>> we could offer an option to make them happy. If it turns out that we
>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>> wrong estimation about the user's
>>>>>>>> expectation, we should change the default behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:46 PM Kurt Young <yk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think batch-stream unification can deal with all the cases,
>>>>>>>>> especially if
>>>>>>>>> the query involves some non deterministic functions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No matter we choose any options, these queries will have
>>>>>>>>> different results.
>>>>>>>>> For example, if we run the same query in batch mode multiple times,
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> highly possible that we get different results. Does that mean all the
>>>>>>>>> database
>>>>>>>>> vendors can't deliver batch-batch unification? I don't think so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's really important here is the user's intuition. What do users
>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> they don't read any documents about these functions. For batch
>>>>>> users, I
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> it's already clear enough that all other systems and databases will
>>>>>>>>> evaluate
>>>>>>>>> these functions during query start. And for streaming users, I have
>>>>>>>>> already seen
>>>>>>>>> some users are expecting these functions to be calculated per record.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus I think we can make the behavior determined together with
>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>> One exception would be PROCTIME(), I think all users would expect
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>> will be calculated for each record. I think SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is
>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>> to PROCTIME(), so we don't have to introduce it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:20 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if we should introduce the `auto` mode. Taking all the
>>>>>>>>>> previous discussions around batch-stream unification into account,
>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>> mode and streaming mode should only influence the runtime efficiency
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> incremental computation. The final query result should be the same
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> both modes. Also looking into the long-term future, we might drop
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> mode property and either derive the mode or use different modes for
>>>>>>>>>> parts of the pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "I think we may need to think more from the users' perspective."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree here and that's why I actually would like to let the user
>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>> which semantics are needed. The config option proposal was my least
>>>>>>>>>> favored alternative. We should stick to the standard and bahavior of
>>>>>>>>>> other systems. For both batch and streaming. And use a simple prefix
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> let users decide whether the semantics are per-record or per-query:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics as all other vendors
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OR
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please check how other vendors are handling this:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATE MySql, Oracle
>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATETIME SQL Server
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 02.02.21 07:02, Jingsong Li wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for the default "auto" to the
>>>>>>>> "table.exec.time-function-evaluation".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From the definition of these functions, in my opinion:
>>>>>>>>>>> - Batch is the instant execution of all records, which is the
>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the word "BATCH", so there is only one time at query-start.
>>>>>>>>>>> - Stream only executes a single record in a moment, so time is
>>>>>>>>>> generated by
>>>>>>>>>>> each record.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, we should be more careful about consistency
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jingsong
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:24 AM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard, Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I just did some investigation and found all the other batch
>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate the time functions at query-start, including
>>>>>> Snowflake,
>>>>>>>>>> Hive,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark, Trino.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering whether the default 'per-record' mode will still be
>>>>>>>>>> weird for
>>>>>>>>>>>> batch users.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we proposed the option for batch users to change the
>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However if 90% users need to set this config before submitting
>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>>>>> why not
>>>>>>>>>>>> use this mode for batch by default? For the other 10% special
>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> can still
>>>>>>>>>>>> set the config to per-record before submitting batch jobs. I
>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> can greatly
>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the usability for batch cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, what do you think about using "auto" as the default
>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>> value?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It evaluates time functions per-record in streaming mode and
>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this can make both streaming users and batch users happy.
>>>>>>>>>> IIUC, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why we
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing the default "per-record" mode is for the batch
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think time functions are special cases because they
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally non-deterministic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if streaming jobs and batch jobs all use "per-record" mode,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't provide consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>> results. Thus, I think we may need to think more from the users'
>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 23:06, Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for considering this issue as well. +1 for the proposed
>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>> option. Let's start a voting thread once the FLIP document has
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated if there are no other concerns?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 15:07, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve discussed with @Timo @Jark about the time function
>>>>>>> evaluation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> further. We reach a consensus that we’d better address the time
>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation(function value materialization) in this FLIP as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We’re fine with introducing an option
>>>>>>>>>>>>> table.exec.time-function-evaluation to control the materialize
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time function value. The time function includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The default value of table.exec.time-function-evaluation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'per-record', which means Flink evaluates the function value per
>>>>>>>>>> record,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend users config this option value for their streaming
>>>>>> pipe
>>>>>>>>>> lines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another valid option value is ’query-start’, which means Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function value at the query start, we recommend users config
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> option value for their batch pipelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, more valid evaluation option value like ‘auto'
>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported if there’re new requirements, e.g： support ‘auto’
>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates time function value per-record in streaming mode and
>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time function value at query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduce function like
>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP2/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP_NOW
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which evaluates function value at query start. This may confuse
>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we provide two similar functions but with different return
>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not introduce any configuration/function, control
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> function evaluation by pipeline execution mode. This may produce
>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> result when user use their streaming pipeline sql to run a
>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline(e.g backfilling), and user also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can not control these function behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you think ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 在 2021年2月1日，18:23，Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parts of the FLIP can already be implemented without a
>>>>>> completed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting, e.g. there is no doubt that we should support TIME(9).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I don't see a benefit of reworking the time functions
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework them again later. If we lock the time on query-start the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the previsouly mentioned functions will be
>>>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 02:37, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also prefer to not expand this FLIP further, but we could
>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right after this FLIP being accepted and start coding &
>>>>>>>> reviewing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion and coding more pipelined will improve efficiency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:47 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think that this topic must be part of the FLIP as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>> Esp.
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP has the title "time function behavior" and this is
>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavioral aspect. We are performing a heavy refactoring of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> query
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics in Flink here which will affect a lot of users. We
>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time functions a third time after this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I checked a couple of other vendors. It seems that they all
>>>>>>>> lock
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp when the query is started. And as you said, in
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature (Oracle) and less mature systems (Hive, MySQL) have
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP-162> “These problems come from the fact that lots of
>>>>>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions like PROCTIME(), NOW(), CURRENT_DATE, CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP are returning time values based on UTC+0
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> zone."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The motivation of FLIP-162 is to correct the wrong
>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value which caused by timezone. And after our discussed
>>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's related to the function return type compared to SQL
>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors and thus we proposed make the function return type
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the exact meaning of the FLIP title and that the
>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for the function materialization mechanism, we didn't
>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a part of our plan because we need to fix the timezone and
>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues no matter we modify the function materialization
>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I think it's not belong to this FLIP scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will have been a great work if we can fix current FLIP's
>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, we don't want to expand the scope again Eps it's not
>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what’s others' thoughts? @Jark @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink should not differ. I fear that we have to adopt this
>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well to call us standard compliant. Otherwise it will also
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have Hive compatibility with proper semantics. It could
>>>>>>> lead
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintended behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see two options for this topic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Clearly distinguish between query-start and processing
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MySQL offers NOW() and SYSDATE() to distinguish the two
>>>>>>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could run all the previously discussed functions that have a
>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems in query-start time and use a different name
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. `SYS_TIMESTAMP`, `SYS_DATE`, `SYS_TIME`,
>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALTIMESTAMP`,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALDATE`, `SYS_LOCALTIME`?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Introduce a config option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are non-compliant by default and allow typical batch
>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed via a config option. But batch/stream unification
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we disable certain unification aspects by default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 16:51, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that I need to open another discussion thread
>>>>>>> befoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think we should also discuss this in this FLIP before
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> pops
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later stage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we want our time functions to behave in long
>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s okay to open this thread. Although I don’t want to
>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function value materialization in this FLIP scope, I could
>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See also:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5522656/sql-now-in-long-running-query
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this was never discussed thoroughly. Actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP should have slightly
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics than PROCTIME(). What it is our current behavior?
>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materializing those time values during planning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP keeps same
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both Batch and Stream world, the function value is
>>>>>>> materialized
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record not the query start(plan phase).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For PROCTIME(), it also keeps same behavior in both
>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world, in fact we just supported PROCTIME() in Batch last
>>>>>>>> week[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, we keep same semantics/behavior for Batch and
>>>>>>>>>> Stream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Esp. long running batch queries might suffer from
>>>>>>>>>> inconsistencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. When a timestamp is produced by one operator using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a different one might filter relating to
>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s a good question, and I've found some users have asked
>>>>>>>>>>>> simillar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions in user/user-zh mail-list, given a fact that many
>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Hive/Presto using the value of query start, but it’s
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream engine, for example user will use CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>>>>>> event
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a unified Batch/Stream SQL engine, keep same
>>>>>>>>>> semantics/behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important, and I agree the Batch user case should also be
>>>>>>>>>>>> considered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think this should be discussed in another topic like
>>>>>>>> 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unification of Batch/Stream' which is beyond the scope of
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This FLIP aims to correct the wrong return type/return
>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 13:46, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a minor suggestion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we will still suggest users use TIMESTAMP even
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ. Then it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing TIMESTAMP_NTZ doesn't help much for users,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces more learning costs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your suggestion makes sense, we should suggest
>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP for TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE as we did now,
>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcut type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP / TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ (supports them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 18:52, Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com> <mailto:xbjtdcq@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for sharing your opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we’ve reached a consensus about the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are we on the same page that LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ? Maybe we should quickly list also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALDATE and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP for completeness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, LOCALTIMESTAMP returns TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME
>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>> TIME,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of them is clear so I just listed them in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> excel[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP references.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Shall we add aliases for the timestamp types as
>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Snowflake supports TIMESTAMP_LTZ , TIMESTAMP_NTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think the discussion was quite cumbersome with the
>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE`. With this FLIP we
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more prominent. And important concepts should
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are used frequently. According to the
>>>>>> FLIP,
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the abbriviation already in function names like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ`.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP_LTZ` could be treated similar to `STRING`
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `VARCHAR(MAX_INT)`, the serializable string
>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice idea, I also suffered from the long name during
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abbreviation will not only help us, but also makes it
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. I list the abbreviation name mapping to
>>>>>> support:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=> TIMESTAMP_NTZ
>>>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE <=> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) I'm fine with supporting all conversion classes
>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime, java.sql.Timestamp that
>>>>>>>>>> TimestampType
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for LocalZonedTimestampType. But we agree that Instant
>>>>>>>> stays
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion class right? The default extraction defined
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Instant stays the default conversion class. The
>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) I would remove the comment "Flink supports
>>>>>>>> TIME-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision well", because unfortunately this is still
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have issues with TIME(9), it would be great if someone
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though. Maybe the implementation of this FLIP would
>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re right, TIME(9) is not supported yet, I'll take
>>>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the scope of this FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve updated this FLIP[2] according your suggestions
>>>>>>> @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll start the vote soon if there’re no objections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 03:18, Jark Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the further investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we all agree we should correct the return
>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the return type of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, I
>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more worldwide useful. This may need more
>>>>>>>> effort,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right direction, we should do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the CURRENT_TIME, if CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ, then I think CURRENT_TIME shouldn't
>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME_TZ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, CURRENT_TIME will be quite special and
>>>>>>>> strange.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think it has to return TIME type. Given that
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE which returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE WITHOUT TIME ZONE, I think it's fine to return
>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITHOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for CURRENT_TIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a word, the updated FLIP looks good to me. I
>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed new function TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ(numeric,
>>>>>>>> [,scale]).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will be very convenient to define rowtime on a
>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very common case and has been complained a lot in
>>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 21:12, Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the detailed response and also
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1, these all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also nice catch about conversion support of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalZonedTimestampType, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to support java.sql.Timestamp as well
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime. It also has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slight benefit that we might have a chance to run
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> udf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which took
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as input parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after we change the return type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to the return type of CURRENT_TIME, I
>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is not useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To not expand this FLIP further, I'm lean to keep
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I think all of the
>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The return values of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be different whether from SQL standard’s
>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) The semantics of three TIMESTAMP types in
>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard and also keeps the same with other 'good'
>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>> => A
>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to describe a time,
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info, can not represent an absolute time point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL ZONE => Records the
>>>>>>> elapsed
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point origin, can represent an absolute time
>>>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time zone when expressed with ‘yyyy-MM-dd
>>>>>> HH:mm:ss’
>>>>>>>>>>>> format.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE => Consists of
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to
>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently we've two ways to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (1): As the FLIP proposed, change the
>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone to local timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) The change looks smaller to
>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There're many SQL engines adopted this way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) connector devs may confuse the
>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampData which needs to change according to
>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this weekend. Unfortunately I found a bad
>>>>>>> case:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposal is fine if we only use it in FLINK
>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>> world,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider the conversion between Table/DataStream,
>>>>>>>>>> assume a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC+0 timezone with TIMESTAMP '1970-01-01
>>>>>>> 08:00:44'
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes the data with session time zone 'UTC+8',
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to convert the Table to DataStream, then we need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in StreamRecord with session time zone (UTC+8),
>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get 44 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream program, but it is wrong because the
>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 60 * 60 + 44). The corner case tell us that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME/PROCTIME in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are based on UTC+0, when correct the PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>> function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE which keeps
>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on UTC+0 and can be expressed with local
>>>>>>>>>> timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (2) : As we considered in the FLIP as well
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the return type to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>> ZONE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value depends on the local time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) Make Flink SQL more close to
>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conversion between Table/DataStream well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) We need to discuss the return
>>>>>>>>>> value/type
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function (2) The change is bigger to users, we
>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE in connectors/formats as well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3)The TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Flink, thus we need some improvement，but the
>>>>>>>> workload
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as we are doing the right thing ^_^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to the above bad case for option (1). I think
>>>>>>>>>> option 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we also need to consider some problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) More conversion classes like LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql.Timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported for LocalZonedTimestampType to resolve
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> UDF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The timezone offset for window size of one day
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) All connectors/formats should supports
>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and we also should record in document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll update these sections of FLIP-162.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also need to discuss the CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>> function. I
>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is using TIME WITH TIME ZONE(there's no TIME WITH
>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't support this type yet and I don't see strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, the CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point which should be considered as
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with 'HH:mm:ss' format and time zone info.
>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) We can forbid CURRENT_TIME as @Timo proposed
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions follow the standard well, in this way,
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance for user upgrading Flink versions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) We can also support it from a user's
>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>> btw，Snowflake
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Returns TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE to make
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP as Calcite did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can image (1) which we don't want to left a bad
>>>>>>>> smell
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also accept (2) because I think users do not
>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they use CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME, and the
>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not very useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t have a strong opinion for them. What do
>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I've addressed your concerns. @Timo @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best，
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the mature systems have a clear
>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. I wouldn't
>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good example. Snowflake decided for TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the last comment, I could also
>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. But in any case, there should be some time
>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered in order to cast to all other types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good idea
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still add those functions in the future.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a TIME WITH TIME ZONE, it is better to not support
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. And by the way, this is exactly the behavior
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server does: it also just supports
>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP without a zone which completes the
>>>>>>>> confusion).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized that user
>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw, and
>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings huge
>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP type
>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a UDF perspective, I think nothing will
>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and type inference were designed to support all
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why Java has adopted Joda time, because it
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good time library. That's why also we and the
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecosystem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have decided for 3 different kinds of
>>>>>> LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZonedDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instance. It makes the library more complex, but
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also doubt that many users work with only one
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an example, a country with 3 different
>>>>>> timezones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US data cannot properly see the data points with
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the other hand, a lot of event data is stored
>>>>>>>> using a
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details, let's
>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind of
>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and time in
>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt: I think we all agree that the current
>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC is wrong. Also, we all agree that when calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME a user would like to see the time in it's
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you said, "my wall clock time".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the question is what is the data type of
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "see". If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass this record on to a different system,
>>>>>> operator,
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should the "my" get lost or materialized into the
>>>>>>>>>> record?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP -> completely lost and could cause
>>>>>>>> confusion
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE -> at least the
>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can provide a new local time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE -> also "your" location
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22.01.21 09:38, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forgot one more thing. Continue with displaying
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to display the timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC, why don't we offer something like
>>>>>>>>>> UTC_TIMESTAMP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:33 PM Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details, let's
>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind of
>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME (if
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and time in
>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone? I think this part is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that surprised lots of users. If we
>>>>>> forget
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal representation of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two methods, as a user, my instinct tells me
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display my wall clock time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Display time in UTC? I'm not sure, why I should
>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to get my current timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those users who have never gone abroad,
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that this is affected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:25 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks @Timo for the detailed reply, let's go
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, I've merged all mails to this
>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that the two series should be different
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different SQL engines can have their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations，for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP are
>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no difference, and Spark only supports the
>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP[2].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I would
>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and let
>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good idea
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information into
>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to all
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for filter
>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE indeed contains more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> information to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point, but the type TIMESTAMP can cast
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types combining with session time zone as
>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter predicates. For type casting between
>>>>>>> BIGINT
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function way using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO_TIMEMTAMP()/FROM_UNIXTIMESTAMP()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We discussed it in a different thread, but we
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globally. People need a way to create
>>>>>> instances
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE. This is not considered in the
>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>> design
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many pipelines contain UTC timestamps and
>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, both CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and
>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we should remember that TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp data types as casting target [1]. We
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE in the future for ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized that user
>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw, and
>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings huge
>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP type
>>>>>>> used,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and UDFs doest not support
>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means both user and Flink devs need to
>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code(UDF,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions, sql pipeline), to be honest, I
>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have to do the pretty big refactor from
>>>>>>> user’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer’s perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, both your suggestion and my
>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user problems，the divergence is whether we
>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> spend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a bit more accurate semantics? I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradeoff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-22，00:53，Timo Walther <
>>>>>>>> twalthr@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for working on this topic. I agree
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy in Flink at the moment. We added new time
>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not supported which even further
>>>>>>> complicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)). We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should definitely improve this situation for
>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a pretty opinionated topic and it
>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not really deciding this but is at least
>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> express
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my opinion for the most important functions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think those are the most obvious ones
>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the locality should be materialized into
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information (coming from session config or
>>>>>> data)
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I would
>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and let
>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information into
>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to all
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for filter
>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC. We
>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we should allow PROCTIME globally. People
>>>>>>>> need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances of TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE.
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current design doc. Many pipelines contain UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be easy to create one. Also, both
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP can work with this type because
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE accepts all
>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target [1]. We could allow TIMESTAMP WITH TIME
>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would like to design this with less
>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>> required,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about returning TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try to involve more people into this
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，22:32，Leonard Xu <
>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql client,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected behavior
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Kurt, thanks for the intuitive case, it
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I want to propose to change the return
>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most important part of the topic from
>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Jark, nice suggestion, I prepared a FLIP
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the FLIP discussion soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To zhisheng, sorry to hear that this problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs, Could you share your SQL pattern? we
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to resolve them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，14:19，Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great examples to understand the problem and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for investigating this
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time-zone problems around time functions
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bothered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of users. It's time to fix them!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return value changes sound reasonable to
>>>>>>> me,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type unchanged will minimize the surprise to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides that, I think it would be better to
>>>>>>>> mention
>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window behaviors, and the interoperability
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ====================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi zhisheng,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have examples to illustrate which case
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundaries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That will help to verify whether the proposed
>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:54，zhisheng <17...@qq.com>
>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Leonard Xu for discussing this
>>>>>> tricky
>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many Flink jobs in our production
>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count day-level reports (eg: count PV/UV
>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical
>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Flink itself can solve these time zone
>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be user-friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best!;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:11，Kurt Young <
>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cc this to user & user-zh mailing list
>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users, and also quite a lot of users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were asking questions around this topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me try to understand this from user's
>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your proposal will affect five functions,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql client,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected behavior will
>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-162: Consistent Flink SQL time function behavior
Posted by Leonard Xu <xb...@gmail.com>.
> I'm fine with your proposal. But once we see users asking for better unified semantics, we should not hesitate to introduce an option to give them more flexibility.
Yes, I agree that we should introduce the option once we received feedback requirement from user input. I will update this tip to FLIP-162 future plan section as well.
If all of us have no more opinions, I’d like start a VOTE thread.
Best,
Leonard
> On 01.03.21 12:59, Leonard Xu wrote:
>> Thanks Kurt and Timo for the feedbacks.
>>>> I prefer to not introduce such config until we have to. Leonard's proposal
>>>> already makes almost all users happy thus I think we can still wait.
>> I could understand Kurt’s concern that we don't need rush to introduce this option util we have to, Especially we don’t sure the right behavior of time function SQL standard about streaming part(SQL standard only contains batch part ), it may change in the future.
>>> However, one concern I would like to raise is still the bounded stream processing. Users will not have the possibility to use query-start semantics. For example, if users would like to use match_recognize on a CSV file, they cannot use query-start
>>> timestamps.
>> I also think Timo’s concern that bounded cases may need query-start is reasonable in some user cases. Although it’s only a few scenes at present from my side, it will change in the future too.
>> As a tradeoff, I propose we could follow my last proposal as a conservative plan in the first step,
>> and then introduce the if there’re enough user requirement/feedback that they need the power to control the time function evaluation,
>> What do you think?
>> Best,
>> Leonard
>>>> Best,
>>>> Kurt
>>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 3:58 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> and btw it is interesting to notice that AWS seems to do the approach
>>>>> that I suggested first.
>>>>>
>>>>> All functions are SQL standard compliant, and only dedicated functions
>>>>> with a prefix such as CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP divert from the standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Timo
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01.03.21 08:45, Timo Walther wrote:
>>>>>> How about we simply go for your first approach by having [query-start,
>>>>>> row, auto] as configuration parameters where [auto] is the default?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This sounds like a good consensus where everyone is happy, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This also allows user to restore the old per-row behavior for all
>>>>>> functions that we had before Flink 1.13.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26.02.21 11:10, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks Joe for the great investigation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Generally urging for semantics (batch > time of first query
>>>>>>>> issued, streaming > row level).
>>>>>>>> I discussed the thing now with Timo & Stephan:
>>>>>>>> • It seems to go towards a config parameter, either [query-start,
>>>>>>>> row] or [query-start, row, auto] and what is the default?
>>>>>>>> • The main question seems to be: are we pushing the default
>>>>>>>> towards streaming. (probably related the insert into behaviour in the
>>>>>>>> sql client).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It looks like opinions in this thread and user inputs agreed that:
>>>>>>> batch should use time of first query, streaming should use row level.
>>>>>>> Based on these, we should keep row level for streaming and query start
>>>>>>> for batch just like the config parameter value [auto].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently Flink keeps row level for time function in both batch and
>>>>>>> streaming job, thus we only need to update the behavior in batch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tend to not expose an obscure configuration to users especially it
>>>>>>> is semantics-related.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.We can make [auto] as a default agreement，for current Flink
>>>>>>> streaming users，they feel nothing has changed，for current Flink
>>>>>>> batch users，they feel Flink batch is corrected to other good batch
>>>>>>> engines as well as SQL standard. We can also provide a function
>>>>>>> CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP[1] for Flink batch users who want row level time
>>>>>>> function.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP can also be used in Flink streaming, it has
>>>>>>> clear semantics, we can encourage users to use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this way, We don’t have to introduce an obscure configuration
>>>>>>> prematurely while making all users happy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kinesisanalytics/latest/sqlref/sql-reference-current-row-timestamp.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hope this helps,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 19.02.2021, at 10:25, Leonard Xu <xb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi, Joe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for volunteering to investigate the user data on this topic.
>>>>>>>>> Do you
>>>>>>>>> have any progress here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:08 PM Johannes Moser
>>>>>>>>> <jo...@data-artisans.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A quick thought on this thread: We see a typical stalemate here,
>>>>>>>>>>> as in so
>>>>>>>>>>> many discussions recently.
>>>>>>>>>>> One developer prefers it this way, another one another way. Both
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> pro/con arguments, it takes a lot of time from everyone, still
>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>> little progress in the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately, this can only be decided by talking to the users. And it
>>>>>>>>>>> would also be the best way to ensure that what we build is the
>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>> and expected way for users.
>>>>>>>>>>> The less the users are into the deep aspects of Flink SQL, the
>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> can mirror what a common user would expect (a power user will
>>>>> anyways
>>>>>>>>>>> figure it out).
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's find a person to drive that, spell it out in the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>> "semantics
>>>>>>>>>>> TBD", and focus on the implementation of the parts that are agreed
>>>>>>>>>>> upon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For interviewing the users, here are some ideas for questions to
>>>>>>>>>>> look at:
>>>>>>>>>>> - How do they view the trade-off between stable semantics vs.
>>>>>>>>>>> out-of-the-box magic (faster getting started).
>>>>>>>>>>> - How comfortable are they realizing the different meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>> "now()" in
>>>>>>>>>>> a streaming versus batch context.
>>>>>>>>>>> - What would be their expectation when moving a query with the time
>>>>>>>>>>> functions ("now()") from an unbounded stream (Kafka source without
>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>> offset) to a bounded stream (Kafka source with end offsets), which
>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>> switch execution to batch.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> Stephan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:19 PM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Fabian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we have an agreement that the functions should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluated at
>>>>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because all the other batch systems and traditional databases are
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior, which is standard SQL compliant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *1. The different point of view is what's the behavior in streaming
>>>>>>>>>> mode? *
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From my point of view, I don't see any potential meaning to
>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate at
>>>>>>>>>>>> query-start for a 365-day long running streaming job.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And from my observation, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is heavily used by Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>> streaming users and they expect the current behaviors.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The SQL standard only provides a guideline for traditional batch
>>>>>>>>>> systems,
>>>>>>>>>>>> however Flink is a leading streaming processing system
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is out of the scope of SQL standard, and Flink should
>>>>>>>>>>>> define the
>>>>>>>>>>>> streaming standard. I think a standard should follow users'
>>>>>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think we don't need to be standard SQL compliant at
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>> because users don't expect it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Changing the behavior of the functions to evaluate at query start
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> streaming mode will hurt most of Flink SQL users and we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>>> gain,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we should avoid this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *2. Does it break the unified streaming-batch semantics? *
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. First of all, what's the unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it means the* eventual result* instead of the *behavior*.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to say we have provided unified behavior for streaming
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because for example unbounded aggregate behaves very differently.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In batch mode, it only evaluates once for the bounded data and
>>>>>>>>>>>> emits the
>>>>>>>>>>>> aggregate result once.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But in streaming mode, it evaluates for each row and emits the
>>>>>>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What we have always emphasized "unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics" is
>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a query produces exactly the same result regardless whether its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> static batch data or streaming data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From my understanding, the "semantic" means the "eventual result".
>>>>>>>>>>>> And time functions are non-deterministic, so it's reasonable to get
>>>>>>>>>>>> different results for batch and streaming mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think it doesn't break the unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>> to evaluate per-record for streaming and
>>>>>>>>>>>> query-start for batch, as the semantic doesn't means behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://flink.apache.org/news/2017/04/04/dynamic-tables.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 18:34, Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for joining this discussion late.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me give some thought to two of the arguments raised in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time functions are inherently non-determintistic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is of course true, but IMO it doesn't mean that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions do not matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes a difference whether a function is evaluated once and
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is reused or whether it is invoked for every record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you use the same logic to justify different behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RAND() in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Provide the semantics that most users expect:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it is clear what most users expect, esp. if we also
>>>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>>>>>> future users (which we certainly want to gain) into this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assessment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Our current users got used to the semantics that we introduced.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be surprised if they would say stick with the current
>>>>>>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we are also claiming standard SQL compliance and stress
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of batch-stream unification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I would assume that new SQL users expect standard compliant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, we should try hard to stick to our goals of 1) unified
>>>>>>>>>>>> batch-streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics and 2) SQL standard compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me this means that the semantics of the functions should be
>>>>>>>>>> adjusted
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be evaluated at query start by default for batch and streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously this would affect *many* current users of streaming SQL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those we should provide two solutions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Add alternative methods that provide the current behavior of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like Timo's proposal to add a prefix like SYS_ (or PROC_) but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>> too much about the names.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The important point is that users need alternative functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> desired semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Add a configuration option to reestablish the current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, the configuration option should not be considered as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> option but rather as a migration path towards the "right"
>>>>> (standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compliant) behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Di., 2. Feb. 2021 um 09:51 Uhr schrieb Kurt Young
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ykt836@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW I also don't like to introduce an option for this case at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we can find a default behavior which can make 90% users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it. If the remaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10% percent users start to complain about the fixed behavior
>>>>> (it's
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible that they don't complain ever),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we could offer an option to make them happy. If it turns out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong estimation about the user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expectation, we should change the default behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:46 PM Kurt Young <yk...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think batch-stream unification can deal with all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the query involves some non deterministic functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No matter we choose any options, these queries will have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if we run the same query in batch mode multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly possible that we get different results. Does that mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors can't deliver batch-batch unification? I don't think so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's really important here is the user's intuition. What do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't read any documents about these functions. For batch
>>>>>>>>>>>> users, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's already clear enough that all other systems and databases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these functions during query start. And for streaming users, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some users are expecting these functions to be calculated per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think we can make the behavior determined together with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One exception would be PROCTIME(), I think all users would
>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be calculated for each record. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PROCTIME(), so we don't have to introduce it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:20 PM Timo Walther <twalthr@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if we should introduce the `auto` mode. Taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous discussions around batch-stream unification into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode and streaming mode should only influence the runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental computation. The final query result should be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modes. Also looking into the long-term future, we might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode property and either derive the mode or use different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modes for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I think we may need to think more from the users'
>>>>> perspective."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree here and that's why I actually would like to let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which semantics are needed. The config option proposal was my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favored alternative. We should stick to the standard and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bahavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems. For both batch and streaming. And use a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefix
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let users decide whether the semantics are per-record or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per-query:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics as all other vendors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please check how other vendors are handling this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATE MySql, Oracle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATETIME SQL Server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02.02.21 07:02, Jingsong Li wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for the default "auto" to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.exec.time-function-evaluation".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the definition of these functions, in my opinion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Batch is the instant execution of all records, which is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word "BATCH", so there is only one time at query-start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Stream only executes a single record in a moment, so time is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, we should be more careful about consistency
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jingsong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:24 AM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard, Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just did some investigation and found all the other batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate the time functions at query-start, including
>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark, Trino.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering whether the default 'per-record' mode will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weird for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we proposed the option for batch users to change the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However if 90% users need to set this config before
>>>>> submitting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use this mode for batch by default? For the other 10% special
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set the config to per-record before submitting batch jobs. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can greatly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the usability for batch cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, what do you think about using "auto" as the
>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It evaluates time functions per-record in streaming mode and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this can make both streaming users and batch users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IIUC, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing the default "per-record" mode is for the batch
>>>>>>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think time functions are special cases because
>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally non-deterministic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if streaming jobs and batch jobs all use "per-record"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't provide consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results. Thus, I think we may need to think more from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 23:06, Timo Walther <
>>>>> twalthr@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for considering this issue as well. +1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option. Let's start a voting thread once the FLIP document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated if there are no other concerns?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 15:07, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve discussed with @Timo @Jark about the time function
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further. We reach a consensus that we’d better address the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation(function value materialization) in this FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We’re fine with introducing an option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table.exec.time-function-evaluation to control the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time function value. The time function includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The default value of table.exec.time-function-evaluation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'per-record', which means Flink evaluates the function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend users config this option value for their streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>> pipe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another valid option value is ’query-start’, which means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function value at the query start, we recommend users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option value for their batch pipelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, more valid evaluation option value like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘auto'
>>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported if there’re new requirements, e.g： support ‘auto’
>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates time function value per-record in streaming mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time function value at query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduce function like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP2/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP_NOW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which evaluates function value at query start. This may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we provide two similar functions but with different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not introduce any configuration/function, control
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function evaluation by pipeline execution mode. This may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result when user use their streaming pipeline sql to run a
>>>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline(e.g backfilling), and user also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can not control these function behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you think ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 在 2021年2月1日，18:23，Timo Walther
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tw...@apache.org> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parts of the FLIP can already be implemented without a
>>>>>>>>>>>> completed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting, e.g. there is no doubt that we should support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I don't see a benefit of reworking the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework them again later. If we lock the time on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query-start the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the previsouly mentioned functions will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 02:37, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also prefer to not expand this FLIP further, but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right after this FLIP being accepted and start coding &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion and coding more pipelined will improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:47 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think that this topic must be part of the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Esp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP has the title "time function behavior" and this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavioral aspect. We are performing a heavy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactoring of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics in Flink here which will affect a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time functions a third time after this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I checked a couple of other vendors. It seems that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp when the query is started. And as you said, in
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature (Oracle) and less mature systems (Hive, MySQL)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP-162> “These problems come from the fact that lots
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions like PROCTIME(), NOW(), CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP are returning time values based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The motivation of FLIP-162 is to correct the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value which caused by timezone. And after our discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's related to the function return type compared to SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors and thus we proposed make the function return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the exact meaning of the FLIP title and that
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for the function materialization mechanism, we
>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a part of our plan because we need to fix the timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues no matter we modify the function materialization
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I think it's not belong to this FLIP scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will have been a great work if we can fix current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP's
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, we don't want to expand the scope again Eps it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what’s others' thoughts? @Jark @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink should not differ. I fear that we have to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well to call us standard compliant. Otherwise it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have Hive compatibility with proper semantics. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintended behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see two options for this topic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Clearly distinguish between query-start and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MySQL offers NOW() and SYSDATE() to distinguish the two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could run all the previously discussed functions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems in query-start time and use a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. `SYS_TIMESTAMP`, `SYS_DATE`, `SYS_TIME`,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALTIMESTAMP`,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALDATE`, `SYS_LOCALTIME`?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Introduce a config option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are non-compliant by default and allow typical batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed via a config option. But batch/stream unification
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we disable certain unification aspects by default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 16:51, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that I need to open another discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> befoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think we should also discuss this in this FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later stage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we want our time functions to behave in long
>>>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s okay to open this thread. Although I don’t want
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function value materialization in this FLIP scope, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See also:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5522656/sql-now-in-long-running-query
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this was never discussed thoroughly. Actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP should have
>>>>> slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics than PROCTIME(). What it is our current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materializing those time values during planning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both Batch and Stream world, the function value is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record not the query start(plan phase).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For PROCTIME(), it also keeps same behavior in both
>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world, in fact we just supported PROCTIME() in Batch
>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, we keep same semantics/behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Esp. long running batch queries might suffer from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. When a timestamp is produced by one operator using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a different one might filter relating to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s a good question, and I've found some users have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simillar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions in user/user-zh mail-list, given a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Hive/Presto using the value of query start, but
>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream engine, for example user will use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a unified Batch/Stream SQL engine, keep same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important, and I agree the Batch user case should also
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think this should be discussed in another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unification of Batch/Stream' which is beyond the scope
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This FLIP aims to correct the wrong return type/return
>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868
>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 13:46, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a minor suggestion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we will still suggest users use TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ. Then it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing TIMESTAMP_NTZ doesn't help much for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces more learning costs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your suggestion makes sense, we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP for TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE as we did now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcut type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP / TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ (supports them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 18:52, Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com> <mailto:xbjtdcq@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for sharing your opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we’ve reached a consensus about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are we on the same page that LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ? Maybe we should quickly list also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALDATE and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP for completeness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, LOCALTIMESTAMP returns TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of them is clear so I just listed them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excel[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP references.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Shall we add aliases for the timestamp types
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Snowflake supports TIMESTAMP_LTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think the discussion was quite cumbersome with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE`. With this FLIP
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more prominent. And important concepts should
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are used frequently. According to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the abbriviation already in function names like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ`.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP_LTZ` could be treated similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `STRING`
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `VARCHAR(MAX_INT)`, the serializable string
>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice idea, I also suffered from the long name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abbreviation will not only help us, but also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. I list the abbreviation name mapping to
>>>>>>>>>>>> support:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) I'm fine with supporting all conversion
>>>>> classes
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime, java.sql.Timestamp that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampType
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for LocalZonedTimestampType. But we agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stays
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion class right? The default extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Instant stays the default conversion class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) I would remove the comment "Flink supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision well", because unfortunately this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have issues with TIME(9), it would be great if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though. Maybe the implementation of this FLIP
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re right, TIME(9) is not supported yet, I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the scope of this FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve updated this FLIP[2] according your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll start the vote soon if there’re no
>>>>> objections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 03:18, Jark Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the further investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we all agree we should correct the
>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the return type of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more worldwide useful. This may need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right direction, we should do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the CURRENT_TIME, if CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ, then I think CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME_TZ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, CURRENT_TIME will be quite special
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strange.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think it has to return TIME type. Given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE which returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE WITHOUT TIME ZONE, I think it's fine to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITHOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for CURRENT_TIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a word, the updated FLIP looks good to me. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed new function TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ(numeric,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [,scale]).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will be very convenient to define rowtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very common case and has been complained a lot
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 21:12, Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the detailed response and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1, these all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also nice catch about conversion support of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalZonedTimestampType, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to support java.sql.Timestamp as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime. It also has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slight benefit that we might have a chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> udf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which took
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as input parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after we change the return type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to the return type of CURRENT_TIME, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is not useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To not expand this FLIP further, I'm lean to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I think all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The return values of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be different whether from SQL standard’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) The semantics of three TIMESTAMP types in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard and also keeps the same with other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'good'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> => A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to describe a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info, can not represent an absolute time
>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL ZONE => Records the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elapsed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point origin, can represent an absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time zone when expressed with ‘yyyy-MM-dd
>>>>>>>>>>>> HH:mm:ss’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE => Consists of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to
>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently we've two ways to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (1): As the FLIP proposed, change the
>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone to local timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) The change looks smaller to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There're many SQL engines adopted this way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) connector devs may confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampData which needs to change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this weekend. Unfortunately I found a
>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposal is fine if we only use it in
>>>>> FLINK
>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider the conversion between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table/DataStream,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC+0 timezone with TIMESTAMP '1970-01-01
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08:00:44'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes the data with session time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'UTC+8',
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to convert the Table to DataStream, then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in StreamRecord with session time zone
>>>>> (UTC+8),
>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get 44 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream program, but it is wrong because
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 60 * 60 + 44). The corner case tell us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME/PROCTIME in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are based on UTC+0, when correct the
>>>>> PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on UTC+0 and can be expressed with
>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (2) : As we considered in the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the return type to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value depends on the local time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) Make Flink SQL more close to
>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conversion between Table/DataStream well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) We need to discuss the return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value/type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function (2) The change is bigger to users, we
>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE in connectors/formats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3)The TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Flink, thus we need some improvement，but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> workload
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as we are doing the right thing ^_^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to the above bad case for option (1). I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we also need to consider some problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) More conversion classes like
>>>>> LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql.Timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported for LocalZonedTimestampType to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UDF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The timezone offset for window size of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) All connectors/formats should supports
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and we also should record in document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll update these sections of FLIP-162.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also need to discuss the CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> function. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is using TIME WITH TIME ZONE(there's no TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't support this type yet and I don't see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, the
>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point which should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered as
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with 'HH:mm:ss' format and time zone
>>>>> info.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) We can forbid CURRENT_TIME as @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions follow the standard well, in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance for user upgrading Flink versions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) We can also support it from a user's
>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw，Snowflake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Returns TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP as Calcite did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can image (1) which we don't want to left
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also accept (2) because I think users do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they use CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not very useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t have a strong opinion for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I've addressed your concerns. @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best，
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the mature systems have a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good example. Snowflake decided for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the last comment, I could also
>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. But in any case, there should be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered in order to cast to all other
>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still add those functions in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a TIME WITH TIME ZONE, it is better to not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. And by the way, this is exactly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server does: it also just supports
>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP without a zone which completes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a UDF perspective, I think nothing will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and type inference were designed to support
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why Java has adopted Joda time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good time library. That's why also we and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecosystem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have decided for 3 different kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZonedDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instance. It makes the library more complex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also doubt that many users work with only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an example, a country with 3 different
>>>>>>>>>>>> timezones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US data cannot properly see the data points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the other hand, a lot of event data is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details,
>>>>> let's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt: I think we all agree that the current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC is wrong. Also, we all agree that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME a user would like to see the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you said, "my wall clock time".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the question is what is the data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "see". If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass this record on to a different system,
>>>>>>>>>>>> operator,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should the "my" get lost or materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP -> completely lost and could cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE -> at least
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can provide a new local time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE -> also "your"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22.01.21 09:38, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forgot one more thing. Continue with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> displaying
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to display the timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC, why don't we offer something like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC_TIMESTAMP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:33 PM Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details,
>>>>> let's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone? I think this part is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that surprised lots of users. If we
>>>>>>>>>>>> forget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal representation of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two methods, as a user, my instinct tells
>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display my wall clock time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Display time in UTC? I'm not sure, why I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to get my current timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those users who have never gone abroad,
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that this is affected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:25 PM Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks @Timo for the detailed reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's go
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, I've merged all mails to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that the two series should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different SQL engines can have their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations，for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no difference, and Spark only supports the
>>>>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP[2].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and
>>>>> let
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for
>>>>> filter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE indeed contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point, but the type TIMESTAMP can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cast
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types combining with session time zone as
>>>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter predicates. For type casting
>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIGINT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function way using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO_TIMEMTAMP()/FROM_UNIXTIMESTAMP()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We discussed it in a different thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globally. People need a way to create
>>>>>>>>>>>> instances
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE. This is not considered in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many pipelines contain UTC timestamps and
>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, both CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we should remember that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp data types as casting target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE in the future for ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>> used,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and UDFs doest not support
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means both user and Flink devs need
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code(UDF,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions, sql pipeline), to be honest, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have to do the pretty big refactor from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> user’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer’s perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, both your suggestion and my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user problems，the divergence is whether we
>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a bit more accurate semantics? I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradeoff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-22，00:53，Timo Walther <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twalthr@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for working on this topic. I agree
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy in Flink at the moment. We added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not supported which even further
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)). We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should definitely improve this situation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a pretty opinionated topic and it
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not really deciding this but is at
>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> express
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my opinion for the most important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think those are the most obvious ones
>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the locality should be materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information (coming from session config or
>>>>>>>>>>>> data)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and
>>>>> let
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for
>>>>> filter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we should allow PROCTIME globally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances of TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current design doc. Many pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be easy to create one. Also, both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP can work with this type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE accepts all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target [1]. We could allow TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would like to design this with less
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about returning TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try to involve more people into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，22:32，Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Kurt, thanks for the intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I want to propose to change the
>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most important part of the topic from
>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Jark, nice suggestion, I prepared a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the FLIP discussion soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To zhisheng, sorry to hear that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs, Could you share your SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern? we
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to resolve them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，14:19，Jark Wu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great examples to understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for investigating this
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time-zone problems around time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bothered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of users. It's time to fix them!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return value changes sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type unchanged will minimize the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surprise to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides that, I think it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window behaviors, and the
>>>>> interoperability
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ====================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi zhisheng,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have examples to illustrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundaries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That will help to verify whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:54，zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <17...@qq.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Leonard Xu for discussing this
>>>>>>>>>>>> tricky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many Flink jobs in our
>>>>> production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count day-level reports (eg: count PV/UV
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Flink itself can solve these time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be user-friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best!;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:11，Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cc this to user & user-zh mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users, and also quite a lot of users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were asking questions around this topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me try to understand this from user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your proposal will affect five functions,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-162: Consistent Flink SQL time function behavior
Posted by Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>.
It is true that your proposal is kind of a conservative plan.
I'm fine with your proposal. But once we see users asking for better
unified semantics, we should not hesitate to introduce an option to give
them more flexibility.
Regards,
Timo
On 01.03.21 12:59, Leonard Xu wrote:
> Thanks Kurt and Timo for the feedbacks.
>
>
>>> I prefer to not introduce such config until we have to. Leonard's proposal
>>> already makes almost all users happy thus I think we can still wait.
>
> I could understand Kurt’s concern that we don't need rush to introduce this option util we have to, Especially we don’t sure the right behavior of time function SQL standard about streaming part(SQL standard only contains batch part ), it may change in the future.
>
>
>> However, one concern I would like to raise is still the bounded stream processing. Users will not have the possibility to use query-start semantics. For example, if users would like to use match_recognize on a CSV file, they cannot use query-start
>> timestamps.
>
> I also think Timo’s concern that bounded cases may need query-start is reasonable in some user cases. Although it’s only a few scenes at present from my side, it will change in the future too.
>
> As a tradeoff, I propose we could follow my last proposal as a conservative plan in the first step,
>
> and then introduce the if there’re enough user requirement/feedback that they need the power to control the time function evaluation,
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best,
> Leonard
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Best,
>>> Kurt
>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 3:58 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> and btw it is interesting to notice that AWS seems to do the approach
>>>> that I suggested first.
>>>>
>>>> All functions are SQL standard compliant, and only dedicated functions
>>>> with a prefix such as CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP divert from the standard.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Timo
>>>>
>>>> On 01.03.21 08:45, Timo Walther wrote:
>>>>> How about we simply go for your first approach by having [query-start,
>>>>> row, auto] as configuration parameters where [auto] is the default?
>>>>>
>>>>> This sounds like a good consensus where everyone is happy, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> This also allows user to restore the old per-row behavior for all
>>>>> functions that we had before Flink 1.13.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Timo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26.02.21 11:10, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks Joe for the great investigation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Generally urging for semantics (batch > time of first query
>>>>>>> issued, streaming > row level).
>>>>>>> I discussed the thing now with Timo & Stephan:
>>>>>>> • It seems to go towards a config parameter, either [query-start,
>>>>>>> row] or [query-start, row, auto] and what is the default?
>>>>>>> • The main question seems to be: are we pushing the default
>>>>>>> towards streaming. (probably related the insert into behaviour in the
>>>>>>> sql client).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like opinions in this thread and user inputs agreed that:
>>>>>> batch should use time of first query, streaming should use row level.
>>>>>> Based on these, we should keep row level for streaming and query start
>>>>>> for batch just like the config parameter value [auto].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently Flink keeps row level for time function in both batch and
>>>>>> streaming job, thus we only need to update the behavior in batch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tend to not expose an obscure configuration to users especially it
>>>>>> is semantics-related.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.We can make [auto] as a default agreement，for current Flink
>>>>>> streaming users，they feel nothing has changed，for current Flink
>>>>>> batch users，they feel Flink batch is corrected to other good batch
>>>>>> engines as well as SQL standard. We can also provide a function
>>>>>> CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP[1] for Flink batch users who want row level time
>>>>>> function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP can also be used in Flink streaming, it has
>>>>>> clear semantics, we can encourage users to use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this way, We don’t have to introduce an obscure configuration
>>>>>> prematurely while making all users happy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kinesisanalytics/latest/sqlref/sql-reference-current-row-timestamp.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hope this helps,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19.02.2021, at 10:25, Leonard Xu <xb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi, Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for volunteering to investigate the user data on this topic.
>>>>>>>> Do you
>>>>>>>> have any progress here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:08 PM Johannes Moser
>>>>>>>> <jo...@data-artisans.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A quick thought on this thread: We see a typical stalemate here,
>>>>>>>>>> as in so
>>>>>>>>>> many discussions recently.
>>>>>>>>>> One developer prefers it this way, another one another way. Both
>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> pro/con arguments, it takes a lot of time from everyone, still
>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>> little progress in the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately, this can only be decided by talking to the users. And it
>>>>>>>>>> would also be the best way to ensure that what we build is the
>>>>>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>>>> and expected way for users.
>>>>>>>>>> The less the users are into the deep aspects of Flink SQL, the
>>>> better
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> can mirror what a common user would expect (a power user will
>>>> anyways
>>>>>>>>>> figure it out).
>>>>>>>>>> Let's find a person to drive that, spell it out in the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>> "semantics
>>>>>>>>>> TBD", and focus on the implementation of the parts that are agreed
>>>>>>>>>> upon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For interviewing the users, here are some ideas for questions to
>>>>>>>>>> look at:
>>>>>>>>>> - How do they view the trade-off between stable semantics vs.
>>>>>>>>>> out-of-the-box magic (faster getting started).
>>>>>>>>>> - How comfortable are they realizing the different meaning of
>>>>>>>>>> "now()" in
>>>>>>>>>> a streaming versus batch context.
>>>>>>>>>> - What would be their expectation when moving a query with the time
>>>>>>>>>> functions ("now()") from an unbounded stream (Kafka source without
>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>> offset) to a bounded stream (Kafka source with end offsets), which
>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>> switch execution to batch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> Stephan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:19 PM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Fabian,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we have an agreement that the functions should be
>>>>>>>>>>> evaluated at
>>>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>> Because all the other batch systems and traditional databases are
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior, which is standard SQL compliant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *1. The different point of view is what's the behavior in streaming
>>>>>>>>> mode? *
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From my point of view, I don't see any potential meaning to
>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate at
>>>>>>>>>>> query-start for a 365-day long running streaming job.
>>>>>>>>>>> And from my observation, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is heavily used by Flink
>>>>>>>>>>> streaming users and they expect the current behaviors.
>>>>>>>>>>> The SQL standard only provides a guideline for traditional batch
>>>>>>>>> systems,
>>>>>>>>>>> however Flink is a leading streaming processing system
>>>>>>>>>>> which is out of the scope of SQL standard, and Flink should
>>>>>>>>>>> define the
>>>>>>>>>>> streaming standard. I think a standard should follow users'
>>>>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think we don't need to be standard SQL compliant at
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>> because users don't expect it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Changing the behavior of the functions to evaluate at query start
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> streaming mode will hurt most of Flink SQL users and we have
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>> gain,
>>>>>>>>>>> we should avoid this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *2. Does it break the unified streaming-batch semantics? *
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. First of all, what's the unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>>>>> semantic?
>>>>>>>>>>> I think it means the* eventual result* instead of the *behavior*.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to say we have provided unified behavior for streaming
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>>>> because for example unbounded aggregate behaves very differently.
>>>>>>>>>>> In batch mode, it only evaluates once for the bounded data and
>>>>>>>>>>> emits the
>>>>>>>>>>> aggregate result once.
>>>>>>>>>>> But in streaming mode, it evaluates for each row and emits the
>>>>>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>>>>>> What we have always emphasized "unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics" is
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a query produces exactly the same result regardless whether its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> static batch data or streaming data.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From my understanding, the "semantic" means the "eventual result".
>>>>>>>>>>> And time functions are non-deterministic, so it's reasonable to get
>>>>>>>>>>> different results for batch and streaming mode.
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think it doesn't break the unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>>>> to evaluate per-record for streaming and
>>>>>>>>>>> query-start for batch, as the semantic doesn't means behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> semantic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://flink.apache.org/news/2017/04/04/dynamic-tables.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 18:34, Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for joining this discussion late.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me give some thought to two of the arguments raised in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Time functions are inherently non-determintistic:
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is of course true, but IMO it doesn't mean that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> functions do not matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes a difference whether a function is evaluated once and
>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>>> is reused or whether it is invoked for every record.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you use the same logic to justify different behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>> RAND() in
>>>>>>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Provide the semantics that most users expect:
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it is clear what most users expect, esp. if we also
>>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>>>>> future users (which we certainly want to gain) into this
>>>>>>>>>>>> assessment.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Our current users got used to the semantics that we introduced.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I
>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be surprised if they would say stick with the current
>>>>>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we are also claiming standard SQL compliance and stress
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>>>>>>>> of batch-stream unification.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I would assume that new SQL users expect standard compliant
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, we should try hard to stick to our goals of 1) unified
>>>>>>>>>>> batch-streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics and 2) SQL standard compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For me this means that the semantics of the functions should be
>>>>>>>>> adjusted
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be evaluated at query start by default for batch and streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>> queries.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously this would affect *many* current users of streaming SQL.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For those we should provide two solutions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Add alternative methods that provide the current behavior of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I like Timo's proposal to add a prefix like SYS_ (or PROC_) but
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>> too much about the names.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The important point is that users need alternative functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> desired semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Add a configuration option to reestablish the current
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, the configuration option should not be considered as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>> option but rather as a migration path towards the "right"
>>>> (standard
>>>>>>>>>>>> compliant) behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Di., 2. Feb. 2021 um 09:51 Uhr schrieb Kurt Young
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ykt836@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW I also don't like to introduce an option for this case at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we can find a default behavior which can make 90% users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy, we
>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it. If the remaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10% percent users start to complain about the fixed behavior
>>>> (it's
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible that they don't complain ever),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we could offer an option to make them happy. If it turns out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong estimation about the user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expectation, we should change the default behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:46 PM Kurt Young <yk...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think batch-stream unification can deal with all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the query involves some non deterministic functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No matter we choose any options, these queries will have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if we run the same query in batch mode multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly possible that we get different results. Does that mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors can't deliver batch-batch unification? I don't think so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's really important here is the user's intuition. What do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't read any documents about these functions. For batch
>>>>>>>>>>> users, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's already clear enough that all other systems and databases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these functions during query start. And for streaming users, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some users are expecting these functions to be calculated per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think we can make the behavior determined together with
>>>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One exception would be PROCTIME(), I think all users would
>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be calculated for each record. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PROCTIME(), so we don't have to introduce it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:20 PM Timo Walther <twalthr@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if we should introduce the `auto` mode. Taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous discussions around batch-stream unification into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account,
>>>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode and streaming mode should only influence the runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental computation. The final query result should be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modes. Also looking into the long-term future, we might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode property and either derive the mode or use different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modes for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I think we may need to think more from the users'
>>>> perspective."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree here and that's why I actually would like to let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which semantics are needed. The config option proposal was my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favored alternative. We should stick to the standard and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bahavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems. For both batch and streaming. And use a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefix
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let users decide whether the semantics are per-record or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per-query:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics as all other vendors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please check how other vendors are handling this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATE MySql, Oracle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATETIME SQL Server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02.02.21 07:02, Jingsong Li wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for the default "auto" to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.exec.time-function-evaluation".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the definition of these functions, in my opinion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Batch is the instant execution of all records, which is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word "BATCH", so there is only one time at query-start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Stream only executes a single record in a moment, so time is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, we should be more careful about consistency
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jingsong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:24 AM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard, Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just did some investigation and found all the other batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate the time functions at query-start, including
>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark, Trino.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering whether the default 'per-record' mode will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weird for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we proposed the option for batch users to change the
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However if 90% users need to set this config before
>>>> submitting
>>>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use this mode for batch by default? For the other 10% special
>>>>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set the config to per-record before submitting batch jobs. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can greatly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the usability for batch cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, what do you think about using "auto" as the
>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It evaluates time functions per-record in streaming mode and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this can make both streaming users and batch users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IIUC, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing the default "per-record" mode is for the batch
>>>>>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think time functions are special cases because
>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally non-deterministic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if streaming jobs and batch jobs all use "per-record"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode,
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't provide consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results. Thus, I think we may need to think more from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 23:06, Timo Walther <
>>>> twalthr@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for considering this issue as well. +1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option. Let's start a voting thread once the FLIP document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated if there are no other concerns?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 15:07, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve discussed with @Timo @Jark about the time function
>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further. We reach a consensus that we’d better address the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation(function value materialization) in this FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We’re fine with introducing an option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table.exec.time-function-evaluation to control the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time function value. The time function includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The default value of table.exec.time-function-evaluation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'per-record', which means Flink evaluates the function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend users config this option value for their streaming
>>>>>>>>>>> pipe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another valid option value is ’query-start’, which means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function value at the query start, we recommend users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option value for their batch pipelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, more valid evaluation option value like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘auto'
>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported if there’re new requirements, e.g： support ‘auto’
>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates time function value per-record in streaming mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time function value at query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduce function like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP2/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP_NOW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which evaluates function value at query start. This may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we provide two similar functions but with different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not introduce any configuration/function, control
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function evaluation by pipeline execution mode. This may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result when user use their streaming pipeline sql to run a
>>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline(e.g backfilling), and user also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can not control these function behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you think ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 在 2021年2月1日，18:23，Timo Walther
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tw...@apache.org> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parts of the FLIP can already be implemented without a
>>>>>>>>>>> completed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting, e.g. there is no doubt that we should support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I don't see a benefit of reworking the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework them again later. If we lock the time on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query-start the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the previsouly mentioned functions will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 02:37, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also prefer to not expand this FLIP further, but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right after this FLIP being accepted and start coding &
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion and coding more pipelined will improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:47 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think that this topic must be part of the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Esp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP has the title "time function behavior" and this is
>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavioral aspect. We are performing a heavy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactoring of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics in Flink here which will affect a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time functions a third time after this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I checked a couple of other vendors. It seems that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp when the query is started. And as you said, in
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature (Oracle) and less mature systems (Hive, MySQL)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP-162> “These problems come from the fact that lots
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions like PROCTIME(), NOW(), CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP are returning time values based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+0
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The motivation of FLIP-162 is to correct the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value which caused by timezone. And after our discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's related to the function return type compared to SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors and thus we proposed make the function return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the exact meaning of the FLIP title and that
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for the function materialization mechanism, we
>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a part of our plan because we need to fix the timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues no matter we modify the function materialization
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I think it's not belong to this FLIP scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will have been a great work if we can fix current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP's
>>>>>>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, we don't want to expand the scope again Eps it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what’s others' thoughts? @Jark @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink should not differ. I fear that we have to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well to call us standard compliant. Otherwise it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have Hive compatibility with proper semantics. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>> lead
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintended behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see two options for this topic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Clearly distinguish between query-start and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MySQL offers NOW() and SYSDATE() to distinguish the two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could run all the previously discussed functions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems in query-start time and use a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. `SYS_TIMESTAMP`, `SYS_DATE`, `SYS_TIME`,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALTIMESTAMP`,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALDATE`, `SYS_LOCALTIME`?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Introduce a config option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are non-compliant by default and allow typical batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed via a config option. But batch/stream unification
>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we disable certain unification aspects by default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 16:51, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that I need to open another discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>> befoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think we should also discuss this in this FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later stage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we want our time functions to behave in long
>>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s okay to open this thread. Although I don’t want
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function value materialization in this FLIP scope, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See also:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5522656/sql-now-in-long-running-query
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this was never discussed thoroughly. Actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP should have
>>>> slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics than PROCTIME(). What it is our current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materializing those time values during planning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both Batch and Stream world, the function value is
>>>>>>>>>>>> materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record not the query start(plan phase).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For PROCTIME(), it also keeps same behavior in both
>>>>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world, in fact we just supported PROCTIME() in Batch
>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>>> week[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, we keep same semantics/behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Esp. long running batch queries might suffer from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. When a timestamp is produced by one operator using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a different one might filter relating to
>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s a good question, and I've found some users have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simillar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions in user/user-zh mail-list, given a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that many
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Hive/Presto using the value of query start, but
>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream engine, for example user will use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a unified Batch/Stream SQL engine, keep same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important, and I agree the Batch user case should also
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think this should be discussed in another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unification of Batch/Stream' which is beyond the scope
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This FLIP aims to correct the wrong return type/return
>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 13:46, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a minor suggestion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we will still suggest users use TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ. Then it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing TIMESTAMP_NTZ doesn't help much for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces more learning costs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your suggestion makes sense, we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP for TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE as we did now,
>>>>>>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcut type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP / TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ (supports them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 18:52, Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com> <mailto:xbjtdcq@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for sharing your opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we’ve reached a consensus about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are we on the same page that LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ? Maybe we should quickly list also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALDATE and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP for completeness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, LOCALTIMESTAMP returns TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME
>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of them is clear so I just listed them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excel[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP references.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Shall we add aliases for the timestamp types
>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Snowflake supports TIMESTAMP_LTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think the discussion was quite cumbersome with the
>>>>>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE`. With this FLIP
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more prominent. And important concepts should
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are used frequently. According to the
>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the abbriviation already in function names like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ`.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP_LTZ` could be treated similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `STRING`
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `VARCHAR(MAX_INT)`, the serializable string
>>>>>>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice idea, I also suffered from the long name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abbreviation will not only help us, but also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. I list the abbreviation name mapping to
>>>>>>>>>>> support:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE <=>
>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) I'm fine with supporting all conversion
>>>> classes
>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime, java.sql.Timestamp that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampType
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for LocalZonedTimestampType. But we agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stays
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion class right? The default extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Instant stays the default conversion class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) I would remove the comment "Flink supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision well", because unfortunately this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have issues with TIME(9), it would be great if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though. Maybe the implementation of this FLIP
>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re right, TIME(9) is not supported yet, I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the scope of this FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve updated this FLIP[2] according your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions
>>>>>>>>>>>> @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll start the vote soon if there’re no
>>>> objections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 03:18, Jark Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the further investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we all agree we should correct the
>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the return type of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more worldwide useful. This may need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right direction, we should do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the CURRENT_TIME, if CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ, then I think CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME_TZ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, CURRENT_TIME will be quite special
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strange.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think it has to return TIME type. Given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE which returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE WITHOUT TIME ZONE, I think it's fine to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITHOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for CURRENT_TIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a word, the updated FLIP looks good to me. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed new function TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ(numeric,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [,scale]).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will be very convenient to define rowtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very common case and has been complained a lot
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 21:12, Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the detailed response and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1, these all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also nice catch about conversion support of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalZonedTimestampType, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to support java.sql.Timestamp as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime. It also has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slight benefit that we might have a chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> udf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which took
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as input parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after we change the return type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to the return type of CURRENT_TIME, I
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is not useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To not expand this FLIP further, I'm lean to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I think all of the
>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The return values of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be different whether from SQL standard’s
>>>>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) The semantics of three TIMESTAMP types in
>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard and also keeps the same with other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'good'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>> => A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to describe a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info, can not represent an absolute time
>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL ZONE => Records the
>>>>>>>>>>>> elapsed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point origin, can represent an absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time zone when expressed with ‘yyyy-MM-dd
>>>>>>>>>>> HH:mm:ss’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE => Consists of
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to
>>>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently we've two ways to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (1): As the FLIP proposed, change the
>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone to local timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) The change looks smaller to
>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There're many SQL engines adopted this way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) connector devs may confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampData which needs to change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to
>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this weekend. Unfortunately I found a
>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> case:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposal is fine if we only use it in
>>>> FLINK
>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider the conversion between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table/DataStream,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC+0 timezone with TIMESTAMP '1970-01-01
>>>>>>>>>>>> 08:00:44'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes the data with session time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'UTC+8',
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to convert the Table to DataStream, then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in StreamRecord with session time zone
>>>> (UTC+8),
>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get 44 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream program, but it is wrong because
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 60 * 60 + 44). The corner case tell us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME/PROCTIME in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are based on UTC+0, when correct the
>>>> PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps
>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on UTC+0 and can be expressed with
>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (2) : As we considered in the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the return type to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value depends on the local time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) Make Flink SQL more close to
>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conversion between Table/DataStream well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) We need to discuss the return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value/type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function (2) The change is bigger to users, we
>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE in connectors/formats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3)The TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Flink, thus we need some improvement，but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> workload
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as we are doing the right thing ^_^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to the above bad case for option (1). I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we also need to consider some problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) More conversion classes like
>>>> LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql.Timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported for LocalZonedTimestampType to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UDF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The timezone offset for window size of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) All connectors/formats should supports
>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and we also should record in document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll update these sections of FLIP-162.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also need to discuss the CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> function. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is using TIME WITH TIME ZONE(there's no TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't support this type yet and I don't see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, the
>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point which should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered as
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with 'HH:mm:ss' format and time zone
>>>> info.
>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) We can forbid CURRENT_TIME as @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions follow the standard well, in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance for user upgrading Flink versions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) We can also support it from a user's
>>>>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw，Snowflake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Returns TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP as Calcite did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can image (1) which we don't want to left
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> smell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also accept (2) because I think users do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they use CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not very useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t have a strong opinion for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I've addressed your concerns. @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best，
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the mature systems have a clear
>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good example. Snowflake decided for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the last comment, I could also
>>>>>>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. But in any case, there should be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered in order to cast to all other
>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still add those functions in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a TIME WITH TIME ZONE, it is better to not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. And by the way, this is exactly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server does: it also just supports
>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP without a zone which completes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a UDF perspective, I think nothing will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and type inference were designed to support
>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why Java has adopted Joda time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good time library. That's why also we and the
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecosystem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have decided for 3 different kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>> LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZonedDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instance. It makes the library more complex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also doubt that many users work with only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an example, a country with 3 different
>>>>>>>>>>> timezones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US data cannot properly see the data points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the other hand, a lot of event data is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details,
>>>> let's
>>>>>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt: I think we all agree that the current
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC is wrong. Also, we all agree that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME a user would like to see the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you said, "my wall clock time".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the question is what is the data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "see". If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass this record on to a different system,
>>>>>>>>>>> operator,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should the "my" get lost or materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP -> completely lost and could cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE -> at least
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can provide a new local time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE -> also "your"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22.01.21 09:38, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forgot one more thing. Continue with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> displaying
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to display the timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC, why don't we offer something like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC_TIMESTAMP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:33 PM Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details,
>>>> let's
>>>>>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone? I think this part is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that surprised lots of users. If we
>>>>>>>>>>> forget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal representation of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two methods, as a user, my instinct tells
>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display my wall clock time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Display time in UTC? I'm not sure, why I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to get my current timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those users who have never gone abroad,
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that this is affected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:25 PM Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks @Timo for the detailed reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's go
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, I've merged all mails to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that the two series should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different SQL engines can have their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations，for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP are
>>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no difference, and Spark only supports the
>>>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP[2].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and
>>>> let
>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to
>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for
>>>> filter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE indeed contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point, but the type TIMESTAMP can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cast
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types combining with session time zone as
>>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter predicates. For type casting
>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> BIGINT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function way using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO_TIMEMTAMP()/FROM_UNIXTIMESTAMP()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We discussed it in a different thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globally. People need a way to create
>>>>>>>>>>> instances
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE. This is not considered in the
>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many pipelines contain UTC timestamps and
>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, both CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we should remember that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp data types as casting target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE in the future for ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>> used,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and UDFs doest not support
>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means both user and Flink devs need
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code(UDF,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions, sql pipeline), to be honest, I
>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have to do the pretty big refactor from
>>>>>>>>>>>> user’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer’s perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, both your suggestion and my
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user problems，the divergence is whether we
>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a bit more accurate semantics? I
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradeoff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-22，00:53，Timo Walther <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> twalthr@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for working on this topic. I agree
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy in Flink at the moment. We added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not supported which even further
>>>>>>>>>>>> complicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)). We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should definitely improve this situation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a pretty opinionated topic and it
>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not really deciding this but is at
>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> express
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my opinion for the most important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think those are the most obvious ones
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the locality should be materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information (coming from session config or
>>>>>>>>>>> data)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and
>>>> let
>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to
>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for
>>>> filter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC. We
>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we should allow PROCTIME globally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances of TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current design doc. Many pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be easy to create one. Also, both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP can work with this type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE accepts all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target [1]. We could allow TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would like to design this with less
>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about returning TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try to involve more people into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，22:32，Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Kurt, thanks for the intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I want to propose to change the
>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most important part of the topic from
>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Jark, nice suggestion, I prepared a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the FLIP discussion soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To zhisheng, sorry to hear that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs, Could you share your SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern? we
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to resolve them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，14:19，Jark Wu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great examples to understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for investigating this
>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time-zone problems around time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bothered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of users. It's time to fix them!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return value changes sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to
>>>>>>>>>>>> me,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type unchanged will minimize the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surprise to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides that, I think it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window behaviors, and the
>>>> interoperability
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ====================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi zhisheng,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have examples to illustrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which case
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundaries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That will help to verify whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:54，zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <17...@qq.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Leonard Xu for discussing this
>>>>>>>>>>> tricky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many Flink jobs in our
>>>> production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count day-level reports (eg: count PV/UV
>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Flink itself can solve these time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be user-friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best!;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:11，Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cc this to user & user-zh mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users, and also quite a lot of users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were asking questions around this topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me try to understand this from user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your proposal will affect five functions,
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-162: Consistent Flink SQL time function behavior
Posted by Leonard Xu <xb...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Kurt and Timo for the feedbacks.
>> I prefer to not introduce such config until we have to. Leonard's proposal
>> already makes almost all users happy thus I think we can still wait.
I could understand Kurt’s concern that we don't need rush to introduce this option util we have to, Especially we don’t sure the right behavior of time function SQL standard about streaming part(SQL standard only contains batch part ), it may change in the future.
> However, one concern I would like to raise is still the bounded stream processing. Users will not have the possibility to use query-start semantics. For example, if users would like to use match_recognize on a CSV file, they cannot use query-start
> timestamps.
I also think Timo’s concern that bounded cases may need query-start is reasonable in some user cases. Although it’s only a few scenes at present from my side, it will change in the future too.
As a tradeoff, I propose we could follow my last proposal as a conservative plan in the first step,
and then introduce the if there’re enough user requirement/feedback that they need the power to control the time function evaluation,
What do you think?
Best,
Leonard
>> Best,
>> Kurt
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 3:58 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> and btw it is interesting to notice that AWS seems to do the approach
>>> that I suggested first.
>>>
>>> All functions are SQL standard compliant, and only dedicated functions
>>> with a prefix such as CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP divert from the standard.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Timo
>>>
>>> On 01.03.21 08:45, Timo Walther wrote:
>>>> How about we simply go for your first approach by having [query-start,
>>>> row, auto] as configuration parameters where [auto] is the default?
>>>>
>>>> This sounds like a good consensus where everyone is happy, no?
>>>>
>>>> This also allows user to restore the old per-row behavior for all
>>>> functions that we had before Flink 1.13.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Timo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26.02.21 11:10, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Joe for the great investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> • Generally urging for semantics (batch > time of first query
>>>>>> issued, streaming > row level).
>>>>>> I discussed the thing now with Timo & Stephan:
>>>>>> • It seems to go towards a config parameter, either [query-start,
>>>>>> row] or [query-start, row, auto] and what is the default?
>>>>>> • The main question seems to be: are we pushing the default
>>>>>> towards streaming. (probably related the insert into behaviour in the
>>>>>> sql client).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like opinions in this thread and user inputs agreed that:
>>>>> batch should use time of first query, streaming should use row level.
>>>>> Based on these, we should keep row level for streaming and query start
>>>>> for batch just like the config parameter value [auto].
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently Flink keeps row level for time function in both batch and
>>>>> streaming job, thus we only need to update the behavior in batch.
>>>>>
>>>>> I tend to not expose an obscure configuration to users especially it
>>>>> is semantics-related.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.We can make [auto] as a default agreement，for current Flink
>>>>> streaming users，they feel nothing has changed，for current Flink
>>>>> batch users，they feel Flink batch is corrected to other good batch
>>>>> engines as well as SQL standard. We can also provide a function
>>>>> CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP[1] for Flink batch users who want row level time
>>>>> function.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP can also be used in Flink streaming, it has
>>>>> clear semantics, we can encourage users to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this way, We don’t have to introduce an obscure configuration
>>>>> prematurely while making all users happy
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Leonard
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
>>> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kinesisanalytics/latest/sqlref/sql-reference-current-row-timestamp.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19.02.2021, at 10:25, Leonard Xu <xb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for volunteering to investigate the user data on this topic.
>>>>>>> Do you
>>>>>>> have any progress here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:08 PM Johannes Moser
>>>>>>> <jo...@data-artisans.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A quick thought on this thread: We see a typical stalemate here,
>>>>>>>>> as in so
>>>>>>>>> many discussions recently.
>>>>>>>>> One developer prefers it this way, another one another way. Both
>>> have
>>>>>>>>> pro/con arguments, it takes a lot of time from everyone, still
>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>> little progress in the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ultimately, this can only be decided by talking to the users. And it
>>>>>>>>> would also be the best way to ensure that what we build is the
>>>>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>>> and expected way for users.
>>>>>>>>> The less the users are into the deep aspects of Flink SQL, the
>>> better
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> can mirror what a common user would expect (a power user will
>>> anyways
>>>>>>>>> figure it out).
>>>>>>>>> Let's find a person to drive that, spell it out in the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>> "semantics
>>>>>>>>> TBD", and focus on the implementation of the parts that are agreed
>>>>>>>>> upon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For interviewing the users, here are some ideas for questions to
>>>>>>>>> look at:
>>>>>>>>> - How do they view the trade-off between stable semantics vs.
>>>>>>>>> out-of-the-box magic (faster getting started).
>>>>>>>>> - How comfortable are they realizing the different meaning of
>>>>>>>>> "now()" in
>>>>>>>>> a streaming versus batch context.
>>>>>>>>> - What would be their expectation when moving a query with the time
>>>>>>>>> functions ("now()") from an unbounded stream (Kafka source without
>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>> offset) to a bounded stream (Kafka source with end offsets), which
>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>> switch execution to batch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Stephan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:19 PM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Fabian,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think we have an agreement that the functions should be
>>>>>>>>>> evaluated at
>>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>> Because all the other batch systems and traditional databases are
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> behavior, which is standard SQL compliant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *1. The different point of view is what's the behavior in streaming
>>>>>>>> mode? *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From my point of view, I don't see any potential meaning to
>>>>>>>>>> evaluate at
>>>>>>>>>> query-start for a 365-day long running streaming job.
>>>>>>>>>> And from my observation, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is heavily used by Flink
>>>>>>>>>> streaming users and they expect the current behaviors.
>>>>>>>>>> The SQL standard only provides a guideline for traditional batch
>>>>>>>> systems,
>>>>>>>>>> however Flink is a leading streaming processing system
>>>>>>>>>> which is out of the scope of SQL standard, and Flink should
>>>>>>>>>> define the
>>>>>>>>>> streaming standard. I think a standard should follow users'
>>>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think we don't need to be standard SQL compliant at
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>> because users don't expect it.
>>>>>>>>>> Changing the behavior of the functions to evaluate at query start
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> streaming mode will hurt most of Flink SQL users and we have
>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>>>>> gain,
>>>>>>>>>> we should avoid this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *2. Does it break the unified streaming-batch semantics? *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. First of all, what's the unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>>>> semantic?
>>>>>>>>>> I think it means the* eventual result* instead of the *behavior*.
>>>>>>>>>> It's hard to say we have provided unified behavior for streaming
>>> and
>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>>> because for example unbounded aggregate behaves very differently.
>>>>>>>>>> In batch mode, it only evaluates once for the bounded data and
>>>>>>>>>> emits the
>>>>>>>>>> aggregate result once.
>>>>>>>>>> But in streaming mode, it evaluates for each row and emits the
>>>>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>>>>> What we have always emphasized "unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>>>> semantics" is
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a query produces exactly the same result regardless whether its
>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> static batch data or streaming data.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From my understanding, the "semantic" means the "eventual result".
>>>>>>>>>> And time functions are non-deterministic, so it's reasonable to get
>>>>>>>>>> different results for batch and streaming mode.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think it doesn't break the unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>>> to evaluate per-record for streaming and
>>>>>>>>>> query-start for batch, as the semantic doesn't means behavior
>>>>>>>>>> semantic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://flink.apache.org/news/2017/04/04/dynamic-tables.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 18:34, Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for joining this discussion late.
>>>>>>>>>>> Let me give some thought to two of the arguments raised in this
>>>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Time functions are inherently non-determintistic:
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> This is of course true, but IMO it doesn't mean that the
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> functions do not matter.
>>>>>>>>>>> It makes a difference whether a function is evaluated once and
>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>> is reused or whether it is invoked for every record.
>>>>>>>>>>> Would you use the same logic to justify different behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>> RAND() in
>>>>>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Provide the semantics that most users expect:
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it is clear what most users expect, esp. if we also
>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>>>> future users (which we certainly want to gain) into this
>>>>>>>>>>> assessment.
>>>>>>>>>>> Our current users got used to the semantics that we introduced.
>>>>>>>>>>> So I
>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be surprised if they would say stick with the current
>>>>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>> However, we are also claiming standard SQL compliance and stress
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>>>>>>> of batch-stream unification.
>>>>>>>>>>> So I would assume that new SQL users expect standard compliant
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, we should try hard to stick to our goals of 1) unified
>>>>>>>>>> batch-streaming
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics and 2) SQL standard compliance.
>>>>>>>>>>> For me this means that the semantics of the functions should be
>>>>>>>> adjusted
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be evaluated at query start by default for batch and streaming
>>>>>>>>>>> queries.
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously this would affect *many* current users of streaming SQL.
>>>>>>>>>>> For those we should provide two solutions:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Add alternative methods that provide the current behavior of
>>> the
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>> I like Timo's proposal to add a prefix like SYS_ (or PROC_) but
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>> too much about the names.
>>>>>>>>>>> The important point is that users need alternative functions to
>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> desired semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Add a configuration option to reestablish the current
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, the configuration option should not be considered as a
>>>>>>>>>>> permanent
>>>>>>>>>>> option but rather as a migration path towards the "right"
>>> (standard
>>>>>>>>>>> compliant) behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Di., 2. Feb. 2021 um 09:51 Uhr schrieb Kurt Young
>>>>>>>>>>> <ykt836@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW I also don't like to introduce an option for this case at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we can find a default behavior which can make 90% users
>>>>>>>>>>>> happy, we
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>> do it. If the remaining
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10% percent users start to complain about the fixed behavior
>>> (it's
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible that they don't complain ever),
>>>>>>>>>>>> we could offer an option to make them happy. If it turns out
>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong estimation about the user's
>>>>>>>>>>>> expectation, we should change the default behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:46 PM Kurt Young <yk...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think batch-stream unification can deal with all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the query involves some non deterministic functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No matter we choose any options, these queries will have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if we run the same query in batch mode multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>> times,
>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly possible that we get different results. Does that mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> database
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors can't deliver batch-batch unification? I don't think so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's really important here is the user's intuition. What do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't read any documents about these functions. For batch
>>>>>>>>>> users, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's already clear enough that all other systems and databases
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these functions during query start. And for streaming users, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some users are expecting these functions to be calculated per
>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think we can make the behavior determined together with
>>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One exception would be PROCTIME(), I think all users would
>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be calculated for each record. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PROCTIME(), so we don't have to introduce it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:20 PM Timo Walther <twalthr@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if we should introduce the `auto` mode. Taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous discussions around batch-stream unification into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account,
>>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode and streaming mode should only influence the runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental computation. The final query result should be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modes. Also looking into the long-term future, we might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode property and either derive the mode or use different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modes for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I think we may need to think more from the users'
>>> perspective."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree here and that's why I actually would like to let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which semantics are needed. The config option proposal was my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favored alternative. We should stick to the standard and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bahavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems. For both batch and streaming. And use a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefix
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let users decide whether the semantics are per-record or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per-query:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics as all other vendors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please check how other vendors are handling this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATE MySql, Oracle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATETIME SQL Server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02.02.21 07:02, Jingsong Li wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for the default "auto" to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "table.exec.time-function-evaluation".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the definition of these functions, in my opinion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Batch is the instant execution of all records, which is the
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word "BATCH", so there is only one time at query-start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Stream only executes a single record in a moment, so time is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, we should be more careful about consistency
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jingsong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:24 AM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard, Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just did some investigation and found all the other batch
>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate the time functions at query-start, including
>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark, Trino.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering whether the default 'per-record' mode will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weird for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we proposed the option for batch users to change the
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However if 90% users need to set this config before
>>> submitting
>>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use this mode for batch by default? For the other 10% special
>>>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set the config to per-record before submitting batch jobs. I
>>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can greatly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the usability for batch cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, what do you think about using "auto" as the
>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It evaluates time functions per-record in streaming mode and
>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this can make both streaming users and batch users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IIUC, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing the default "per-record" mode is for the batch
>>>>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think time functions are special cases because
>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally non-deterministic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if streaming jobs and batch jobs all use "per-record"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode,
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't provide consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results. Thus, I think we may need to think more from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 23:06, Timo Walther <
>>> twalthr@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for considering this issue as well. +1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option. Let's start a voting thread once the FLIP document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated if there are no other concerns?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 15:07, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve discussed with @Timo @Jark about the time function
>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further. We reach a consensus that we’d better address the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation(function value materialization) in this FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We’re fine with introducing an option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table.exec.time-function-evaluation to control the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time function value. The time function includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The default value of table.exec.time-function-evaluation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'per-record', which means Flink evaluates the function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend users config this option value for their streaming
>>>>>>>>>> pipe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another valid option value is ’query-start’, which means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function value at the query start, we recommend users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option value for their batch pipelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, more valid evaluation option value like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘auto'
>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported if there’re new requirements, e.g： support ‘auto’
>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates time function value per-record in streaming mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time function value at query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduce function like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP2/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP_NOW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which evaluates function value at query start. This may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we provide two similar functions but with different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not introduce any configuration/function, control
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function evaluation by pipeline execution mode. This may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result when user use their streaming pipeline sql to run a
>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline(e.g backfilling), and user also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can not control these function behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you think ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 在 2021年2月1日，18:23，Timo Walther
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tw...@apache.org> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parts of the FLIP can already be implemented without a
>>>>>>>>>> completed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting, e.g. there is no doubt that we should support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I don't see a benefit of reworking the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework them again later. If we lock the time on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query-start the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the previsouly mentioned functions will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 02:37, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also prefer to not expand this FLIP further, but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right after this FLIP being accepted and start coding &
>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion and coding more pipelined will improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:47 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think that this topic must be part of the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Esp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP has the title "time function behavior" and this is
>>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavioral aspect. We are performing a heavy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactoring of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics in Flink here which will affect a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time functions a third time after this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I checked a couple of other vendors. It seems that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they all
>>>>>>>>>>>> lock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp when the query is started. And as you said, in
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature (Oracle) and less mature systems (Hive, MySQL)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP-162> “These problems come from the fact that lots
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions like PROCTIME(), NOW(), CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP are returning time values based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+0
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The motivation of FLIP-162 is to correct the wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value which caused by timezone. And after our discussed
>>>>>>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's related to the function return type compared to SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors and thus we proposed make the function return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the exact meaning of the FLIP title and that
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for the function materialization mechanism, we
>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a part of our plan because we need to fix the timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues no matter we modify the function materialization
>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I think it's not belong to this FLIP scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will have been a great work if we can fix current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP's
>>>>>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, we don't want to expand the scope again Eps it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what’s others' thoughts? @Jark @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink should not differ. I fear that we have to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well to call us standard compliant. Otherwise it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have Hive compatibility with proper semantics. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>> lead
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintended behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see two options for this topic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Clearly distinguish between query-start and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MySQL offers NOW() and SYSDATE() to distinguish the two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could run all the previously discussed functions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems in query-start time and use a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. `SYS_TIMESTAMP`, `SYS_DATE`, `SYS_TIME`,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALTIMESTAMP`,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALDATE`, `SYS_LOCALTIME`?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Introduce a config option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are non-compliant by default and allow typical batch
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed via a config option. But batch/stream unification
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we disable certain unification aspects by default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 16:51, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that I need to open another discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>> befoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think we should also discuss this in this FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later stage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we want our time functions to behave in long
>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s okay to open this thread. Although I don’t want
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function value materialization in this FLIP scope, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See also:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5522656/sql-now-in-long-running-query
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this was never discussed thoroughly. Actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP should have
>>> slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics than PROCTIME(). What it is our current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior?
>>>>>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materializing those time values during planning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both Batch and Stream world, the function value is
>>>>>>>>>>> materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record not the query start(plan phase).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For PROCTIME(), it also keeps same behavior in both
>>>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world, in fact we just supported PROCTIME() in Batch
>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>> week[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, we keep same semantics/behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Esp. long running batch queries might suffer from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. When a timestamp is produced by one operator using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a different one might filter relating to
>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s a good question, and I've found some users have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simillar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions in user/user-zh mail-list, given a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that many
>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Hive/Presto using the value of query start, but
>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream engine, for example user will use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a unified Batch/Stream SQL engine, keep same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important, and I agree the Batch user case should also
>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think this should be discussed in another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic like
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unification of Batch/Stream' which is beyond the scope
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This FLIP aims to correct the wrong return type/return
>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868
>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 13:46, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a minor suggestion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we will still suggest users use TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ. Then it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing TIMESTAMP_NTZ doesn't help much for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces more learning costs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your suggestion makes sense, we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP for TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE as we did now,
>>>>>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcut type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP / TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ (supports them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 18:52, Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com> <mailto:xbjtdcq@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for sharing your opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we’ve reached a consensus about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are we on the same page that LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ? Maybe we should quickly list also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALDATE and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP for completeness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, LOCALTIMESTAMP returns TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME
>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of them is clear so I just listed them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excel[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP references.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Shall we add aliases for the timestamp types
>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Snowflake supports TIMESTAMP_LTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think the discussion was quite cumbersome with the
>>>>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE`. With this FLIP
>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more prominent. And important concepts should
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are used frequently. According to the
>>>>>>>>>> FLIP,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the abbriviation already in function names like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ`.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP_LTZ` could be treated similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `STRING`
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `VARCHAR(MAX_INT)`, the serializable string
>>>>>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice idea, I also suffered from the long name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abbreviation will not only help us, but also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. I list the abbreviation name mapping to
>>>>>>>>>> support:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE <=>
>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) I'm fine with supporting all conversion
>>> classes
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime, java.sql.Timestamp that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampType
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for LocalZonedTimestampType. But we agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instant
>>>>>>>>>>>> stays
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion class right? The default extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Instant stays the default conversion class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) I would remove the comment "Flink supports
>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision well", because unfortunately this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have issues with TIME(9), it would be great if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though. Maybe the implementation of this FLIP
>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re right, TIME(9) is not supported yet, I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the scope of this FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve updated this FLIP[2] according your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions
>>>>>>>>>>> @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll start the vote soon if there’re no
>>> objections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 03:18, Jark Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the further investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we all agree we should correct the
>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the return type of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more worldwide useful. This may need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>> effort,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right direction, we should do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the CURRENT_TIME, if CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ, then I think CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME_TZ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, CURRENT_TIME will be quite special
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> strange.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think it has to return TIME type. Given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE which returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE WITHOUT TIME ZONE, I think it's fine to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITHOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for CURRENT_TIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a word, the updated FLIP looks good to me. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed new function TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ(numeric,
>>>>>>>>>>>> [,scale]).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will be very convenient to define rowtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very common case and has been complained a lot
>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 21:12, Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the detailed response and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1, these all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also nice catch about conversion support of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalZonedTimestampType, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to support java.sql.Timestamp as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime. It also has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slight benefit that we might have a chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> udf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which took
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as input parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after we change the return type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to the return type of CURRENT_TIME, I
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is not useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To not expand this FLIP further, I'm lean to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I think all of the
>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The return values of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be different whether from SQL standard’s
>>>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) The semantics of three TIMESTAMP types in
>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard and also keeps the same with other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'good'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> => A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to describe a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info, can not represent an absolute time
>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL ZONE => Records the
>>>>>>>>>>> elapsed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point origin, can represent an absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time zone when expressed with ‘yyyy-MM-dd
>>>>>>>>>> HH:mm:ss’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE => Consists of
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to
>>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently we've two ways to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (1): As the FLIP proposed, change the
>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone to local timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) The change looks smaller to
>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There're many SQL engines adopted this way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) connector devs may confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampData which needs to change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to
>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this weekend. Unfortunately I found a
>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>> case:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposal is fine if we only use it in
>>> FLINK
>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider the conversion between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table/DataStream,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC+0 timezone with TIMESTAMP '1970-01-01
>>>>>>>>>>> 08:00:44'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes the data with session time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'UTC+8',
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to convert the Table to DataStream, then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in StreamRecord with session time zone
>>> (UTC+8),
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get 44 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream program, but it is wrong because
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 60 * 60 + 44). The corner case tell us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME/PROCTIME in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are based on UTC+0, when correct the
>>> PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps
>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on UTC+0 and can be expressed with
>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (2) : As we considered in the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the return type to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value depends on the local time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) Make Flink SQL more close to
>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conversion between Table/DataStream well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) We need to discuss the return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value/type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function (2) The change is bigger to users, we
>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE in connectors/formats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3)The TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Flink, thus we need some improvement，but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> workload
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as we are doing the right thing ^_^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to the above bad case for option (1). I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we also need to consider some problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) More conversion classes like
>>> LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql.Timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported for LocalZonedTimestampType to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> UDF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The timezone offset for window size of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) All connectors/formats should supports
>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and we also should record in document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll update these sections of FLIP-162.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also need to discuss the CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>> function. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is using TIME WITH TIME ZONE(there's no TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't support this type yet and I don't see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, the
>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point which should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered as
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with 'HH:mm:ss' format and time zone
>>> info.
>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) We can forbid CURRENT_TIME as @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions follow the standard well, in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance for user upgrading Flink versions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) We can also support it from a user's
>>>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw，Snowflake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Returns TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP as Calcite did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can image (1) which we don't want to left
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> smell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also accept (2) because I think users do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they use CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not very useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t have a strong opinion for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do
>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I've addressed your concerns. @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best，
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the mature systems have a clear
>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good example. Snowflake decided for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the last comment, I could also
>>>>>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. But in any case, there should be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered in order to cast to all other
>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still add those functions in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a TIME WITH TIME ZONE, it is better to not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. And by the way, this is exactly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server does: it also just supports
>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP without a zone which completes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a UDF perspective, I think nothing will
>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and type inference were designed to support
>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why Java has adopted Joda time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good time library. That's why also we and the
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecosystem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have decided for 3 different kinds of
>>>>>>>>>> LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZonedDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instance. It makes the library more complex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also doubt that many users work with only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an example, a country with 3 different
>>>>>>>>>> timezones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US data cannot properly see the data points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the other hand, a lot of event data is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored
>>>>>>>>>>>> using a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details,
>>> let's
>>>>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt: I think we all agree that the current
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC is wrong. Also, we all agree that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME a user would like to see the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you said, "my wall clock time".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the question is what is the data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "see". If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass this record on to a different system,
>>>>>>>>>> operator,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should the "my" get lost or materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP -> completely lost and could cause
>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE -> at least
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can provide a new local time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE -> also "your"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22.01.21 09:38, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forgot one more thing. Continue with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> displaying
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to display the timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC, why don't we offer something like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC_TIMESTAMP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:33 PM Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details,
>>> let's
>>>>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone? I think this part is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that surprised lots of users. If we
>>>>>>>>>> forget
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal representation of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two methods, as a user, my instinct tells
>>> me
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display my wall clock time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Display time in UTC? I'm not sure, why I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to get my current timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those users who have never gone abroad,
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that this is affected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:25 PM Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks @Timo for the detailed reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's go
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, I've merged all mails to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that the two series should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different SQL engines can have their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations，for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP are
>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no difference, and Spark only supports the
>>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP[2].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and
>>> let
>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to
>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for
>>> filter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE indeed contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point, but the type TIMESTAMP can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cast
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types combining with session time zone as
>>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter predicates. For type casting
>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>> BIGINT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function way using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO_TIMEMTAMP()/FROM_UNIXTIMESTAMP()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We discussed it in a different thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globally. People need a way to create
>>>>>>>>>> instances
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE. This is not considered in the
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many pipelines contain UTC timestamps and
>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, both CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we should remember that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp data types as casting target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE in the future for ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>> used,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and UDFs doest not support
>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means both user and Flink devs need
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code(UDF,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions, sql pipeline), to be honest, I
>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have to do the pretty big refactor from
>>>>>>>>>>> user’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer’s perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, both your suggestion and my
>>>>>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user problems，the divergence is whether we
>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a bit more accurate semantics? I
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradeoff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-22，00:53，Timo Walther <
>>>>>>>>>>>> twalthr@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for working on this topic. I agree
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy in Flink at the moment. We added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new time
>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not supported which even further
>>>>>>>>>>> complicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)). We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should definitely improve this situation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a pretty opinionated topic and it
>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not really deciding this but is at
>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> express
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my opinion for the most important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think those are the most obvious ones
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the locality should be materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information (coming from session config or
>>>>>>>>>> data)
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and
>>> let
>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to
>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for
>>> filter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC. We
>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we should allow PROCTIME globally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>>>>> need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances of TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current design doc. Many pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be easy to create one. Also, both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP can work with this type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE accepts all
>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target [1]. We could allow TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would like to design this with less
>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about returning TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try to involve more people into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，22:32，Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected behavior
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Kurt, thanks for the intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I want to propose to change the
>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most important part of the topic from
>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Jark, nice suggestion, I prepared a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the FLIP discussion soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To zhisheng, sorry to hear that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs, Could you share your SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern? we
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to resolve them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，14:19，Jark Wu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great examples to understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for investigating this
>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time-zone problems around time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bothered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of users. It's time to fix them!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return value changes sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to
>>>>>>>>>>> me,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type unchanged will minimize the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surprise to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides that, I think it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better to
>>>>>>>>>>>> mention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window behaviors, and the
>>> interoperability
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ====================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi zhisheng,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have examples to illustrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which case
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundaries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That will help to verify whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:54，zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <17...@qq.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Leonard Xu for discussing this
>>>>>>>>>> tricky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many Flink jobs in our
>>> production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count day-level reports (eg: count PV/UV
>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Flink itself can solve these time zone
>>>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be user-friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best!;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:11，Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cc this to user & user-zh mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users, and also quite a lot of users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were asking questions around this topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me try to understand this from user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your proposal will affect five functions,
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-162: Consistent Flink SQL time function behavior
Posted by Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>.
I agree that Leonard's last proposal makes "almost all" users happy.
However, a config option (as Joe said) would make "all" user happy
because they have the power to choose.
I don't have a strong opinion on this proposal as it is bascially a
mixture of both approaches:
1) "some magic using the mode" + 2) "dedicated per-row function"
However, one concern I would like to raise is still the bounded stream
processing. Users will not have the possibility to use query-start
semantics. For example, if users would like to use match_recognize on a
CSV file, they cannot use query-start timestamps.
Regards,
Timo
On 01.03.21 10:06, Kurt Young wrote:
> I'm +1 to Leonard's last proposal, which:
> 1. Keep CURRENT_TIMESTAMP row level behavior in streaming mode, and make it
> evaluated at query start in batch mode.
> 2. Introduce CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP for batch users who want such semantic.
>
> I'm slightly -1 for introducing an option because we are handling a
> semantic question to our user. Imagine in the future, we
> are all crystal clear about the desired behavior, and SQL standard also
> covers such streaming use case. Then we will suffer
> from such config option, because users can always make Flink SQL have
> strange behavior by setting this config to an undesired way.
>
> I prefer to not introduce such config until we have to. Leonard's proposal
> already makes almost all users happy thus I think
> we can still wait.
>
> Best,
> Kurt
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 3:58 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> and btw it is interesting to notice that AWS seems to do the approach
>> that I suggested first.
>>
>> All functions are SQL standard compliant, and only dedicated functions
>> with a prefix such as CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP divert from the standard.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Timo
>>
>> On 01.03.21 08:45, Timo Walther wrote:
>>> How about we simply go for your first approach by having [query-start,
>>> row, auto] as configuration parameters where [auto] is the default?
>>>
>>> This sounds like a good consensus where everyone is happy, no?
>>>
>>> This also allows user to restore the old per-row behavior for all
>>> functions that we had before Flink 1.13.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Timo
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26.02.21 11:10, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>> Thanks Joe for the great investigation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> • Generally urging for semantics (batch > time of first query
>>>>> issued, streaming > row level).
>>>>> I discussed the thing now with Timo & Stephan:
>>>>> • It seems to go towards a config parameter, either [query-start,
>>>>> row] or [query-start, row, auto] and what is the default?
>>>>> • The main question seems to be: are we pushing the default
>>>>> towards streaming. (probably related the insert into behaviour in the
>>>>> sql client).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It looks like opinions in this thread and user inputs agreed that:
>>>> batch should use time of first query, streaming should use row level.
>>>> Based on these, we should keep row level for streaming and query start
>>>> for batch just like the config parameter value [auto].
>>>>
>>>> Currently Flink keeps row level for time function in both batch and
>>>> streaming job, thus we only need to update the behavior in batch.
>>>>
>>>> I tend to not expose an obscure configuration to users especially it
>>>> is semantics-related.
>>>>
>>>> 1.We can make [auto] as a default agreement，for current Flink
>>>> streaming users，they feel nothing has changed，for current Flink
>>>> batch users，they feel Flink batch is corrected to other good batch
>>>> engines as well as SQL standard. We can also provide a function
>>>> CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP[1] for Flink batch users who want row level time
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> 2. CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP can also be used in Flink streaming, it has
>>>> clear semantics, we can encourage users to use it.
>>>>
>>>> In this way, We don’t have to introduce an obscure configuration
>>>> prematurely while making all users happy
>>>>
>>>> How do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Leonard
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kinesisanalytics/latest/sqlref/sql-reference-current-row-timestamp.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hope this helps,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19.02.2021, at 10:25, Leonard Xu <xb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for volunteering to investigate the user data on this topic.
>>>>>> Do you
>>>>>> have any progress here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:08 PM Johannes Moser
>>>>>> <jo...@data-artisans.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A quick thought on this thread: We see a typical stalemate here,
>>>>>>>> as in so
>>>>>>>> many discussions recently.
>>>>>>>> One developer prefers it this way, another one another way. Both
>> have
>>>>>>>> pro/con arguments, it takes a lot of time from everyone, still
>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>> little progress in the discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ultimately, this can only be decided by talking to the users. And it
>>>>>>>> would also be the best way to ensure that what we build is the
>>>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>> and expected way for users.
>>>>>>>> The less the users are into the deep aspects of Flink SQL, the
>> better
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> can mirror what a common user would expect (a power user will
>> anyways
>>>>>>>> figure it out).
>>>>>>>> Let's find a person to drive that, spell it out in the FLIP as
>>>>>>>> "semantics
>>>>>>>> TBD", and focus on the implementation of the parts that are agreed
>>>>>>>> upon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For interviewing the users, here are some ideas for questions to
>>>>>>>> look at:
>>>>>>>> - How do they view the trade-off between stable semantics vs.
>>>>>>>> out-of-the-box magic (faster getting started).
>>>>>>>> - How comfortable are they realizing the different meaning of
>>>>>>>> "now()" in
>>>>>>>> a streaming versus batch context.
>>>>>>>> - What would be their expectation when moving a query with the time
>>>>>>>> functions ("now()") from an unbounded stream (Kafka source without
>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>> offset) to a bounded stream (Kafka source with end offsets), which
>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>> switch execution to batch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Stephan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:19 PM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Fabian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we have an agreement that the functions should be
>>>>>>>>> evaluated at
>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>> Because all the other batch systems and traditional databases are
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> behavior, which is standard SQL compliant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *1. The different point of view is what's the behavior in streaming
>>>>>>> mode? *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From my point of view, I don't see any potential meaning to
>>>>>>>>> evaluate at
>>>>>>>>> query-start for a 365-day long running streaming job.
>>>>>>>>> And from my observation, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is heavily used by Flink
>>>>>>>>> streaming users and they expect the current behaviors.
>>>>>>>>> The SQL standard only provides a guideline for traditional batch
>>>>>>> systems,
>>>>>>>>> however Flink is a leading streaming processing system
>>>>>>>>> which is out of the scope of SQL standard, and Flink should
>>>>>>>>> define the
>>>>>>>>> streaming standard. I think a standard should follow users'
>>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think we don't need to be standard SQL compliant at
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>> because users don't expect it.
>>>>>>>>> Changing the behavior of the functions to evaluate at query start
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> streaming mode will hurt most of Flink SQL users and we have
>>>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>>>> gain,
>>>>>>>>> we should avoid this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *2. Does it break the unified streaming-batch semantics? *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. First of all, what's the unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>>> semantic?
>>>>>>>>> I think it means the* eventual result* instead of the *behavior*.
>>>>>>>>> It's hard to say we have provided unified behavior for streaming
>> and
>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>> because for example unbounded aggregate behaves very differently.
>>>>>>>>> In batch mode, it only evaluates once for the bounded data and
>>>>>>>>> emits the
>>>>>>>>> aggregate result once.
>>>>>>>>> But in streaming mode, it evaluates for each row and emits the
>>>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>>>> What we have always emphasized "unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>>>> semantics" is
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a query produces exactly the same result regardless whether its
>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> static batch data or streaming data.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From my understanding, the "semantic" means the "eventual result".
>>>>>>>>> And time functions are non-deterministic, so it's reasonable to get
>>>>>>>>> different results for batch and streaming mode.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think it doesn't break the unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>> to evaluate per-record for streaming and
>>>>>>>>> query-start for batch, as the semantic doesn't means behavior
>>>>>>>>> semantic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://flink.apache.org/news/2017/04/04/dynamic-tables.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 18:34, Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for joining this discussion late.
>>>>>>>>>> Let me give some thought to two of the arguments raised in this
>>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Time functions are inherently non-determintistic:
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> This is of course true, but IMO it doesn't mean that the
>>>>>>>>>> semantics of
>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> functions do not matter.
>>>>>>>>>> It makes a difference whether a function is evaluated once and
>> it's
>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>> is reused or whether it is invoked for every record.
>>>>>>>>>> Would you use the same logic to justify different behavior of
>>>>>>>>>> RAND() in
>>>>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Provide the semantics that most users expect:
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it is clear what most users expect, esp. if we also
>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>>> future users (which we certainly want to gain) into this
>>>>>>>>>> assessment.
>>>>>>>>>> Our current users got used to the semantics that we introduced.
>>>>>>>>>> So I
>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be surprised if they would say stick with the current
>>>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>>>> However, we are also claiming standard SQL compliance and stress
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>>>>>> of batch-stream unification.
>>>>>>>>>> So I would assume that new SQL users expect standard compliant
>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IMO, we should try hard to stick to our goals of 1) unified
>>>>>>>>> batch-streaming
>>>>>>>>>> semantics and 2) SQL standard compliance.
>>>>>>>>>> For me this means that the semantics of the functions should be
>>>>>>> adjusted
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> be evaluated at query start by default for batch and streaming
>>>>>>>>>> queries.
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously this would affect *many* current users of streaming SQL.
>>>>>>>>>> For those we should provide two solutions:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Add alternative methods that provide the current behavior of
>> the
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>> I like Timo's proposal to add a prefix like SYS_ (or PROC_) but
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>> too much about the names.
>>>>>>>>>> The important point is that users need alternative functions to
>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> desired semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Add a configuration option to reestablish the current
>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>>>> IMO, the configuration option should not be considered as a
>>>>>>>>>> permanent
>>>>>>>>>> option but rather as a migration path towards the "right"
>> (standard
>>>>>>>>>> compliant) behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am Di., 2. Feb. 2021 um 09:51 Uhr schrieb Kurt Young
>>>>>>>>>> <ykt836@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW I also don't like to introduce an option for this case at the
>>>>>>>>>>> first step.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we can find a default behavior which can make 90% users
>>>>>>>>>>> happy, we
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> do it. If the remaining
>>>>>>>>>>> 10% percent users start to complain about the fixed behavior
>> (it's
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> possible that they don't complain ever),
>>>>>>>>>>> we could offer an option to make them happy. If it turns out
>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong estimation about the user's
>>>>>>>>>>> expectation, we should change the default behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:46 PM Kurt Young <yk...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think batch-stream unification can deal with all the
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if
>>>>>>>>>>>> the query involves some non deterministic functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No matter we choose any options, these queries will have
>>>>>>>>>>>> different results.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if we run the same query in batch mode multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>> times,
>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>> highly possible that we get different results. Does that mean
>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>>> database
>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors can't deliver batch-batch unification? I don't think so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's really important here is the user's intuition. What do
>>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't read any documents about these functions. For batch
>>>>>>>>> users, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's already clear enough that all other systems and databases
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate
>>>>>>>>>>>> these functions during query start. And for streaming users, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> already seen
>>>>>>>>>>>> some users are expecting these functions to be calculated per
>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think we can make the behavior determined together with
>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One exception would be PROCTIME(), I think all users would
>> expect
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>> will be calculated for each record. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is
>>>>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>> to PROCTIME(), so we don't have to introduce it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:20 PM Timo Walther <twalthr@apache.org
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if we should introduce the `auto` mode. Taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous discussions around batch-stream unification into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> account,
>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode and streaming mode should only influence the runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental computation. The final query result should be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modes. Also looking into the long-term future, we might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode property and either derive the mode or use different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> modes for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I think we may need to think more from the users'
>> perspective."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree here and that's why I actually would like to let the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which semantics are needed. The config option proposal was my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>> favored alternative. We should stick to the standard and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bahavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems. For both batch and streaming. And use a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefix
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> let users decide whether the semantics are per-record or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> per-query:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics as all other vendors
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please check how other vendors are handling this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATE MySql, Oracle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATETIME SQL Server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02.02.21 07:02, Jingsong Li wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for the default "auto" to the
>>>>>>>>>>> "table.exec.time-function-evaluation".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the definition of these functions, in my opinion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Batch is the instant execution of all records, which is the
>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word "BATCH", so there is only one time at query-start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Stream only executes a single record in a moment, so time is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> generated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, we should be more careful about consistency
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jingsong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:24 AM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard, Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just did some investigation and found all the other batch
>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate the time functions at query-start, including
>>>>>>>>> Snowflake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark, Trino.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering whether the default 'per-record' mode will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> weird for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we proposed the option for batch users to change the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However if 90% users need to set this config before
>> submitting
>>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use this mode for batch by default? For the other 10% special
>>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set the config to per-record before submitting batch jobs. I
>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can greatly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the usability for batch cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, what do you think about using "auto" as the
>> default
>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It evaluates time functions per-record in streaming mode and
>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this can make both streaming users and batch users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IIUC, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing the default "per-record" mode is for the batch
>>>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think time functions are special cases because
>> they
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally non-deterministic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if streaming jobs and batch jobs all use "per-record"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode,
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't provide consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results. Thus, I think we may need to think more from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 23:06, Timo Walther <
>> twalthr@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for considering this issue as well. +1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option. Let's start a voting thread once the FLIP document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated if there are no other concerns?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 15:07, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve discussed with @Timo @Jark about the time function
>>>>>>>>>> evaluation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further. We reach a consensus that we’d better address the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation(function value materialization) in this FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We’re fine with introducing an option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table.exec.time-function-evaluation to control the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time function value. The time function includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The default value of table.exec.time-function-evaluation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'per-record', which means Flink evaluates the function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value per
>>>>>>>>>>>>> record,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend users config this option value for their streaming
>>>>>>>>> pipe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another valid option value is ’query-start’, which means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function value at the query start, we recommend users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option value for their batch pipelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, more valid evaluation option value like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘auto'
>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported if there’re new requirements, e.g： support ‘auto’
>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates time function value per-record in streaming mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time function value at query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduce function like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP2/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP_NOW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which evaluates function value at query start. This may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we provide two similar functions but with different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not introduce any configuration/function, control
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function evaluation by pipeline execution mode. This may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result when user use their streaming pipeline sql to run a
>>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline(e.g backfilling), and user also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can not control these function behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you think ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 在 2021年2月1日，18:23，Timo Walther
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tw...@apache.org> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parts of the FLIP can already be implemented without a
>>>>>>>>> completed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting, e.g. there is no doubt that we should support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I don't see a benefit of reworking the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework them again later. If we lock the time on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query-start the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the previsouly mentioned functions will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 02:37, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also prefer to not expand this FLIP further, but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right after this FLIP being accepted and start coding &
>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion and coding more pipelined will improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:47 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think that this topic must be part of the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>> Esp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP has the title "time function behavior" and this is
>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavioral aspect. We are performing a heavy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactoring of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics in Flink here which will affect a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time functions a third time after this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I checked a couple of other vendors. It seems that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they all
>>>>>>>>>>> lock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp when the query is started. And as you said, in
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature (Oracle) and less mature systems (Hive, MySQL)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP-162> “These problems come from the fact that lots
>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions like PROCTIME(), NOW(), CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP are returning time values based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+0
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The motivation of FLIP-162 is to correct the wrong
>>>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value which caused by timezone. And after our discussed
>>>>>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's related to the function return type compared to SQL
>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors and thus we proposed make the function return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the exact meaning of the FLIP title and that
>> the
>>>>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for the function materialization mechanism, we
>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a part of our plan because we need to fix the timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues no matter we modify the function materialization
>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I think it's not belong to this FLIP scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will have been a great work if we can fix current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP's
>>>>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, we don't want to expand the scope again Eps it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what’s others' thoughts? @Jark @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink should not differ. I fear that we have to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well to call us standard compliant. Otherwise it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have Hive compatibility with proper semantics. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> lead
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintended behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see two options for this topic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Clearly distinguish between query-start and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MySQL offers NOW() and SYSDATE() to distinguish the two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could run all the previously discussed functions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems in query-start time and use a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. `SYS_TIMESTAMP`, `SYS_DATE`, `SYS_TIME`,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALTIMESTAMP`,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALDATE`, `SYS_LOCALTIME`?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Introduce a config option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are non-compliant by default and allow typical batch
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed via a config option. But batch/stream unification
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we disable certain unification aspects by default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 16:51, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that I need to open another discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>> befoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think we should also discuss this in this FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later stage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we want our time functions to behave in long
>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s okay to open this thread. Although I don’t want
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function value materialization in this FLIP scope, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See also:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5522656/sql-now-in-long-running-query
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this was never discussed thoroughly. Actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP should have
>> slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics than PROCTIME(). What it is our current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior?
>>>>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materializing those time values during planning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both Batch and Stream world, the function value is
>>>>>>>>>> materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record not the query start(plan phase).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For PROCTIME(), it also keeps same behavior in both
>>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world, in fact we just supported PROCTIME() in Batch
>> last
>>>>>>>>>>> week[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, we keep same semantics/behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Esp. long running batch queries might suffer from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. When a timestamp is produced by one operator using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a different one might filter relating to
>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s a good question, and I've found some users have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simillar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions in user/user-zh mail-list, given a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that many
>>>>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Hive/Presto using the value of query start, but
>> it’s
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream engine, for example user will use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a unified Batch/Stream SQL engine, keep same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important, and I agree the Batch user case should also
>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think this should be discussed in another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic like
>>>>>>>>>>> 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unification of Batch/Stream' which is beyond the scope
>> of
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This FLIP aims to correct the wrong return type/return
>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868
>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 13:46, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a minor suggestion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we will still suggest users use TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ. Then it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing TIMESTAMP_NTZ doesn't help much for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces more learning costs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your suggestion makes sense, we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP for TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE as we did now,
>>>>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcut type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP / TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ (supports them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 18:52, Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com> <mailto:xbjtdcq@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for sharing your opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we’ve reached a consensus about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are we on the same page that LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ? Maybe we should quickly list also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALDATE and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP for completeness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, LOCALTIMESTAMP returns TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME
>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of them is clear so I just listed them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excel[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP references.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Shall we add aliases for the timestamp types
>> as
>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Snowflake supports TIMESTAMP_LTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think the discussion was quite cumbersome with the
>>>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE`. With this FLIP
>> we
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more prominent. And important concepts should
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are used frequently. According to the
>>>>>>>>> FLIP,
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the abbriviation already in function names like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ`.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP_LTZ` could be treated similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `STRING`
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `VARCHAR(MAX_INT)`, the serializable string
>>>>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice idea, I also suffered from the long name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abbreviation will not only help us, but also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. I list the abbreviation name mapping to
>>>>>>>>> support:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE <=>
>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) I'm fine with supporting all conversion
>> classes
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime, java.sql.Timestamp that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampType
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for LocalZonedTimestampType. But we agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instant
>>>>>>>>>>> stays
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion class right? The default extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Instant stays the default conversion class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) I would remove the comment "Flink supports
>>>>>>>>>>> TIME-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision well", because unfortunately this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have issues with TIME(9), it would be great if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though. Maybe the implementation of this FLIP
>> would
>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re right, TIME(9) is not supported yet, I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the scope of this FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve updated this FLIP[2] according your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions
>>>>>>>>>> @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll start the vote soon if there’re no
>> objections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 03:18, Jark Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the further investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we all agree we should correct the
>> return
>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the return type of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>> I
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more worldwide useful. This may need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>> effort,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right direction, we should do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the CURRENT_TIME, if CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ, then I think CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME_TZ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, CURRENT_TIME will be quite special
>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> strange.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think it has to return TIME type. Given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE which returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE WITHOUT TIME ZONE, I think it's fine to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITHOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for CURRENT_TIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a word, the updated FLIP looks good to me. I
>>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed new function TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ(numeric,
>>>>>>>>>>> [,scale]).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will be very convenient to define rowtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very common case and has been complained a lot
>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 21:12, Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the detailed response and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1, these all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also nice catch about conversion support of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalZonedTimestampType, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to support java.sql.Timestamp as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime. It also has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slight benefit that we might have a chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> udf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which took
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as input parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after we change the return type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to the return type of CURRENT_TIME, I
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is not useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To not expand this FLIP further, I'm lean to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I think all of the
>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The return values of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be different whether from SQL standard’s
>>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) The semantics of three TIMESTAMP types in
>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard and also keeps the same with other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'good'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>> => A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to describe a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info, can not represent an absolute time
>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL ZONE => Records the
>>>>>>>>>> elapsed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point origin, can represent an absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time zone when expressed with ‘yyyy-MM-dd
>>>>>>>>> HH:mm:ss’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE => Consists of
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to
>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently we've two ways to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (1): As the FLIP proposed, change the
>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone to local timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) The change looks smaller to
>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There're many SQL engines adopted this way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) connector devs may confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampData which needs to change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to
>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this weekend. Unfortunately I found a
>> bad
>>>>>>>>>> case:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposal is fine if we only use it in
>> FLINK
>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> world,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider the conversion between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table/DataStream,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC+0 timezone with TIMESTAMP '1970-01-01
>>>>>>>>>> 08:00:44'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes the data with session time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'UTC+8',
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to convert the Table to DataStream, then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in StreamRecord with session time zone
>> (UTC+8),
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get 44 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream program, but it is wrong because
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 60 * 60 + 44). The corner case tell us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME/PROCTIME in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are based on UTC+0, when correct the
>> PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps
>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on UTC+0 and can be expressed with
>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (2) : As we considered in the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the return type to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value depends on the local time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) Make Flink SQL more close to
>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conversion between Table/DataStream well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) We need to discuss the return
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value/type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function (2) The change is bigger to users, we
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE in connectors/formats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3)The TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Flink, thus we need some improvement，but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> workload
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as we are doing the right thing ^_^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to the above bad case for option (1). I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> option 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we also need to consider some problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) More conversion classes like
>> LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql.Timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported for LocalZonedTimestampType to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> UDF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The timezone offset for window size of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one day
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) All connectors/formats should supports
>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and we also should record in document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll update these sections of FLIP-162.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also need to discuss the CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>> function. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is using TIME WITH TIME ZONE(there's no TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't support this type yet and I don't see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, the
>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point which should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered as
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with 'HH:mm:ss' format and time zone
>> info.
>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) We can forbid CURRENT_TIME as @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions follow the standard well, in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance for user upgrading Flink versions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) We can also support it from a user's
>>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw，Snowflake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Returns TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP as Calcite did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can image (1) which we don't want to left
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bad
>>>>>>>>>>> smell
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also accept (2) because I think users do not
>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they use CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not very useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t have a strong opinion for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do
>>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I've addressed your concerns. @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best，
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the mature systems have a clear
>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good example. Snowflake decided for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the last comment, I could also
>>>>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. But in any case, there should be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered in order to cast to all other
>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still add those functions in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a TIME WITH TIME ZONE, it is better to not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. And by the way, this is exactly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server does: it also just supports
>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP without a zone which completes the
>>>>>>>>>>> confusion).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a UDF perspective, I think nothing will
>>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and type inference were designed to support
>> all
>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why Java has adopted Joda time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good time library. That's why also we and the
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecosystem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have decided for 3 different kinds of
>>>>>>>>> LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZonedDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instance. It makes the library more complex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also doubt that many users work with only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an example, a country with 3 different
>>>>>>>>> timezones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US data cannot properly see the data points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the other hand, a lot of event data is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored
>>>>>>>>>>> using a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details,
>> let's
>>>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind
>> of
>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt: I think we all agree that the current
>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC is wrong. Also, we all agree that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME a user would like to see the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you said, "my wall clock time".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the question is what is the data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "see". If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass this record on to a different system,
>>>>>>>>> operator,
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should the "my" get lost or materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> record?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP -> completely lost and could cause
>>>>>>>>>>> confusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE -> at least
>> the
>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can provide a new local time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE -> also "your"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22.01.21 09:38, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forgot one more thing. Continue with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> displaying
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to display the timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC, why don't we offer something like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC_TIMESTAMP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:33 PM Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details,
>> let's
>>>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind
>> of
>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone? I think this part is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that surprised lots of users. If we
>>>>>>>>> forget
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal representation of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two methods, as a user, my instinct tells
>> me
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display my wall clock time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Display time in UTC? I'm not sure, why I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to get my current timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those users who have never gone abroad,
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that this is affected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:25 PM Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks @Timo for the detailed reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's go
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, I've merged all mails to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that the two series should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different SQL engines can have their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations，for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP are
>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no difference, and Spark only supports the
>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP[2].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and
>> let
>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to
>> all
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for
>> filter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE indeed contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point, but the type TIMESTAMP can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cast
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types combining with session time zone as
>>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter predicates. For type casting
>> between
>>>>>>>>>> BIGINT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function way using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO_TIMEMTAMP()/FROM_UNIXTIMESTAMP()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We discussed it in a different thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globally. People need a way to create
>>>>>>>>> instances
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE. This is not considered in the
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many pipelines contain UTC timestamps and
>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, both CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we should remember that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp data types as casting target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We
>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE in the future for ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>> used,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and UDFs doest not support
>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means both user and Flink devs need
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code(UDF,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions, sql pipeline), to be honest, I
>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have to do the pretty big refactor from
>>>>>>>>>> user’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer’s perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, both your suggestion and my
>>>>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user problems，the divergence is whether we
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a bit more accurate semantics? I
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradeoff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-22，00:53，Timo Walther <
>>>>>>>>>>> twalthr@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for working on this topic. I agree
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy in Flink at the moment. We added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new time
>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not supported which even further
>>>>>>>>>> complicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)). We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should definitely improve this situation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a pretty opinionated topic and it
>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not really deciding this but is at
>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> express
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my opinion for the most important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think those are the most obvious ones
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the locality should be materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information (coming from session config or
>>>>>>>>> data)
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and
>> let
>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to
>> all
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for
>> filter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC. We
>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we should allow PROCTIME globally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>>>> need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances of TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current design doc. Many pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be easy to create one. Also, both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP can work with this type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE accepts all
>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target [1]. We could allow TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would like to design this with less
>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about returning TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try to involve more people into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，22:32，Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected behavior
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Kurt, thanks for the intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, it
>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I want to propose to change the
>> return
>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most important part of the topic from
>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Jark, nice suggestion, I prepared a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the FLIP discussion soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To zhisheng, sorry to hear that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs, Could you share your SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern? we
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to resolve them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，14:19，Jark Wu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great examples to understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for investigating this
>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time-zone problems around time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bothered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of users. It's time to fix them!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return value changes sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to
>>>>>>>>>> me,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type unchanged will minimize the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surprise to
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides that, I think it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better to
>>>>>>>>>>> mention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window behaviors, and the
>> interoperability
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ====================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi zhisheng,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have examples to illustrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which case
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundaries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That will help to verify whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:54，zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <17...@qq.com>
>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Leonard Xu for discussing this
>>>>>>>>> tricky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many Flink jobs in our
>> production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count day-level reports (eg: count PV/UV
>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Flink itself can solve these time zone
>>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be user-friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best!;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:11，Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cc this to user & user-zh mailing list
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users, and also quite a lot of users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were asking questions around this topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me try to understand this from user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your proposal will affect five functions,
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-162: Consistent Flink SQL time function behavior
Posted by Kurt Young <yk...@gmail.com>.
I'm +1 to Leonard's last proposal, which:
1. Keep CURRENT_TIMESTAMP row level behavior in streaming mode, and make it
evaluated at query start in batch mode.
2. Introduce CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP for batch users who want such semantic.
I'm slightly -1 for introducing an option because we are handling a
semantic question to our user. Imagine in the future, we
are all crystal clear about the desired behavior, and SQL standard also
covers such streaming use case. Then we will suffer
from such config option, because users can always make Flink SQL have
strange behavior by setting this config to an undesired way.
I prefer to not introduce such config until we have to. Leonard's proposal
already makes almost all users happy thus I think
we can still wait.
Best,
Kurt
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 3:58 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> wrote:
> and btw it is interesting to notice that AWS seems to do the approach
> that I suggested first.
>
> All functions are SQL standard compliant, and only dedicated functions
> with a prefix such as CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP divert from the standard.
>
> Regards,
> Timo
>
> On 01.03.21 08:45, Timo Walther wrote:
> > How about we simply go for your first approach by having [query-start,
> > row, auto] as configuration parameters where [auto] is the default?
> >
> > This sounds like a good consensus where everyone is happy, no?
> >
> > This also allows user to restore the old per-row behavior for all
> > functions that we had before Flink 1.13.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Timo
> >
> >
> > On 26.02.21 11:10, Leonard Xu wrote:
> >> Thanks Joe for the great investigation.
> >>
> >>
> >>> • Generally urging for semantics (batch > time of first query
> >>> issued, streaming > row level).
> >>> I discussed the thing now with Timo & Stephan:
> >>> • It seems to go towards a config parameter, either [query-start,
> >>> row] or [query-start, row, auto] and what is the default?
> >>> • The main question seems to be: are we pushing the default
> >>> towards streaming. (probably related the insert into behaviour in the
> >>> sql client).
> >>
> >>
> >> It looks like opinions in this thread and user inputs agreed that:
> >> batch should use time of first query, streaming should use row level.
> >> Based on these, we should keep row level for streaming and query start
> >> for batch just like the config parameter value [auto].
> >>
> >> Currently Flink keeps row level for time function in both batch and
> >> streaming job, thus we only need to update the behavior in batch.
> >>
> >> I tend to not expose an obscure configuration to users especially it
> >> is semantics-related.
> >>
> >> 1.We can make [auto] as a default agreement，for current Flink
> >> streaming users，they feel nothing has changed，for current Flink
> >> batch users，they feel Flink batch is corrected to other good batch
> >> engines as well as SQL standard. We can also provide a function
> >> CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP[1] for Flink batch users who want row level time
> >> function.
> >>
> >> 2. CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP can also be used in Flink streaming, it has
> >> clear semantics, we can encourage users to use it.
> >>
> >> In this way, We don’t have to introduce an obscure configuration
> >> prematurely while making all users happy
> >>
> >> How do you think?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Leonard
> >> [1]
> >>
> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kinesisanalytics/latest/sqlref/sql-reference-current-row-timestamp.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hope this helps,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>>> On 19.02.2021, at 10:25, Leonard Xu <xb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, Joe
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for volunteering to investigate the user data on this topic.
> >>>> Do you
> >>>> have any progress here?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Leonard
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:08 PM Johannes Moser
> >>>> <jo...@data-artisans.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks, Joe
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A quick thought on this thread: We see a typical stalemate here,
> >>>>>> as in so
> >>>>>> many discussions recently.
> >>>>>> One developer prefers it this way, another one another way. Both
> have
> >>>>>> pro/con arguments, it takes a lot of time from everyone, still
> >>>>>> there is
> >>>>>> little progress in the discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ultimately, this can only be decided by talking to the users. And it
> >>>>>> would also be the best way to ensure that what we build is the
> >>>>>> intuitive
> >>>>>> and expected way for users.
> >>>>>> The less the users are into the deep aspects of Flink SQL, the
> better
> >>>>> they
> >>>>>> can mirror what a common user would expect (a power user will
> anyways
> >>>>>> figure it out).
> >>>>>> Let's find a person to drive that, spell it out in the FLIP as
> >>>>>> "semantics
> >>>>>> TBD", and focus on the implementation of the parts that are agreed
> >>>>>> upon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For interviewing the users, here are some ideas for questions to
> >>>>>> look at:
> >>>>>> - How do they view the trade-off between stable semantics vs.
> >>>>>> out-of-the-box magic (faster getting started).
> >>>>>> - How comfortable are they realizing the different meaning of
> >>>>>> "now()" in
> >>>>>> a streaming versus batch context.
> >>>>>> - What would be their expectation when moving a query with the time
> >>>>>> functions ("now()") from an unbounded stream (Kafka source without
> >>>>>> end
> >>>>>> offset) to a bounded stream (Kafka source with end offsets), which
> >>>>>> may
> >>>>>> switch execution to batch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Stephan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:19 PM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Fabian,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we have an agreement that the functions should be
> >>>>>>> evaluated at
> >>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
> >>>>>>> Because all the other batch systems and traditional databases are
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>> behavior, which is standard SQL compliant.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *1. The different point of view is what's the behavior in streaming
> >>>>> mode? *
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From my point of view, I don't see any potential meaning to
> >>>>>>> evaluate at
> >>>>>>> query-start for a 365-day long running streaming job.
> >>>>>>> And from my observation, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is heavily used by Flink
> >>>>>>> streaming users and they expect the current behaviors.
> >>>>>>> The SQL standard only provides a guideline for traditional batch
> >>>>> systems,
> >>>>>>> however Flink is a leading streaming processing system
> >>>>>>> which is out of the scope of SQL standard, and Flink should
> >>>>>>> define the
> >>>>>>> streaming standard. I think a standard should follow users'
> >>>>>>> intuition.
> >>>>>>> Therefore, I think we don't need to be standard SQL compliant at
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>> point
> >>>>>>> because users don't expect it.
> >>>>>>> Changing the behavior of the functions to evaluate at query start
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> streaming mode will hurt most of Flink SQL users and we have
> >>>>>>> nothing to
> >>>>>>> gain,
> >>>>>>> we should avoid this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *2. Does it break the unified streaming-batch semantics? *
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't think so. First of all, what's the unified streaming-batch
> >>>>>>> semantic?
> >>>>>>> I think it means the* eventual result* instead of the *behavior*.
> >>>>>>> It's hard to say we have provided unified behavior for streaming
> and
> >>>>> batch
> >>>>>>> jobs,
> >>>>>>> because for example unbounded aggregate behaves very differently.
> >>>>>>> In batch mode, it only evaluates once for the bounded data and
> >>>>>>> emits the
> >>>>>>> aggregate result once.
> >>>>>>> But in streaming mode, it evaluates for each row and emits the
> >>>>>>> updated
> >>>>>>> result.
> >>>>>>> What we have always emphasized "unified streaming-batch
> >>>>>>> semantics" is
> >>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> a query produces exactly the same result regardless whether its
> >>>>>>>> input
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>> static batch data or streaming data.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From my understanding, the "semantic" means the "eventual result".
> >>>>>>> And time functions are non-deterministic, so it's reasonable to get
> >>>>>>> different results for batch and streaming mode.
> >>>>>>> Therefore, I think it doesn't break the unified streaming-batch
> >>>>> semantics
> >>>>>>> to evaluate per-record for streaming and
> >>>>>>> query-start for batch, as the semantic doesn't means behavior
> >>>>>>> semantic.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>> Jark
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1]: https://flink.apache.org/news/2017/04/04/dynamic-tables.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 18:34, Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sorry for joining this discussion late.
> >>>>>>>> Let me give some thought to two of the arguments raised in this
> >>>>>>>> thread.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Time functions are inherently non-determintistic:
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> This is of course true, but IMO it doesn't mean that the
> >>>>>>>> semantics of
> >>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>> functions do not matter.
> >>>>>>>> It makes a difference whether a function is evaluated once and
> it's
> >>>>>>> result
> >>>>>>>> is reused or whether it is invoked for every record.
> >>>>>>>> Would you use the same logic to justify different behavior of
> >>>>>>>> RAND() in
> >>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Provide the semantics that most users expect:
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> I don't think it is clear what most users expect, esp. if we also
> >>>>> include
> >>>>>>>> future users (which we certainly want to gain) into this
> >>>>>>>> assessment.
> >>>>>>>> Our current users got used to the semantics that we introduced.
> >>>>>>>> So I
> >>>>>>>> wouldn't be surprised if they would say stick with the current
> >>>>> semantics.
> >>>>>>>> However, we are also claiming standard SQL compliance and stress
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>> goal
> >>>>>>>> of batch-stream unification.
> >>>>>>>> So I would assume that new SQL users expect standard compliant
> >>>>>>>> behavior
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> IMO, we should try hard to stick to our goals of 1) unified
> >>>>>>> batch-streaming
> >>>>>>>> semantics and 2) SQL standard compliance.
> >>>>>>>> For me this means that the semantics of the functions should be
> >>>>> adjusted
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> be evaluated at query start by default for batch and streaming
> >>>>>>>> queries.
> >>>>>>>> Obviously this would affect *many* current users of streaming SQL.
> >>>>>>>> For those we should provide two solutions:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1) Add alternative methods that provide the current behavior of
> the
> >>>>> time
> >>>>>>>> functions.
> >>>>>>>> I like Timo's proposal to add a prefix like SYS_ (or PROC_) but
> >>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>> care
> >>>>>>>> too much about the names.
> >>>>>>>> The important point is that users need alternative functions to
> >>>>>>>> provide
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> desired semantics.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2) Add a configuration option to reestablish the current
> >>>>>>>> behavior of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> time functions.
> >>>>>>>> IMO, the configuration option should not be considered as a
> >>>>>>>> permanent
> >>>>>>>> option but rather as a migration path towards the "right"
> (standard
> >>>>>>>> compliant) behavior.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Am Di., 2. Feb. 2021 um 09:51 Uhr schrieb Kurt Young
> >>>>>>>> <ykt836@gmail.com
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> BTW I also don't like to introduce an option for this case at the
> >>>>>>>>> first step.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If we can find a default behavior which can make 90% users
> >>>>>>>>> happy, we
> >>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>> do it. If the remaining
> >>>>>>>>> 10% percent users start to complain about the fixed behavior
> (it's
> >>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>> possible that they don't complain ever),
> >>>>>>>>> we could offer an option to make them happy. If it turns out
> >>>>>>>>> that we
> >>>>>>> had
> >>>>>>>>> wrong estimation about the user's
> >>>>>>>>> expectation, we should change the default behavior.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>> Kurt
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:46 PM Kurt Young <yk...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think batch-stream unification can deal with all the
> >>>>>>>>>> cases,
> >>>>>>>>>> especially if
> >>>>>>>>>> the query involves some non deterministic functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No matter we choose any options, these queries will have
> >>>>>>>>>> different results.
> >>>>>>>>>> For example, if we run the same query in batch mode multiple
> >>>>>>>>>> times,
> >>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>> highly possible that we get different results. Does that mean
> >>>>>>>>>> all the
> >>>>>>>>>> database
> >>>>>>>>>> vendors can't deliver batch-batch unification? I don't think so.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What's really important here is the user's intuition. What do
> >>>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>> expect
> >>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> they don't read any documents about these functions. For batch
> >>>>>>> users, I
> >>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>> it's already clear enough that all other systems and databases
> >>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>> evaluate
> >>>>>>>>>> these functions during query start. And for streaming users, I
> >>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> already seen
> >>>>>>>>>> some users are expecting these functions to be calculated per
> >>>>>>>>>> record.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thus I think we can make the behavior determined together with
> >>>>>>>> execution
> >>>>>>>>>> mode.
> >>>>>>>>>> One exception would be PROCTIME(), I think all users would
> expect
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> function
> >>>>>>>>>> will be calculated for each record. I think
> >>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is
> >>>>>>>>>> similar
> >>>>>>>>>> to PROCTIME(), so we don't have to introduce it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>> Kurt
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:20 PM Timo Walther <twalthr@apache.org
> >
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if we should introduce the `auto` mode. Taking
> >>>>>>>>>>> all the
> >>>>>>>>>>> previous discussions around batch-stream unification into
> >>>>>>>>>>> account,
> >>>>>>>> batch
> >>>>>>>>>>> mode and streaming mode should only influence the runtime
> >>>>>>>>>>> efficiency
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> incremental computation. The final query result should be the
> >>>>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> both modes. Also looking into the long-term future, we might
> >>>>>>>>>>> drop
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> mode property and either derive the mode or use different
> >>>>>>>>>>> modes for
> >>>>>>>>>>> parts of the pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "I think we may need to think more from the users'
> perspective."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I agree here and that's why I actually would like to let the
> >>>>>>>>>>> user
> >>>>>>>> decide
> >>>>>>>>>>> which semantics are needed. The config option proposal was my
> >>>>>>>>>>> least
> >>>>>>>>>>> favored alternative. We should stick to the standard and
> >>>>>>>>>>> bahavior of
> >>>>>>>>>>> other systems. For both batch and streaming. And use a simple
> >>>>>>>>>>> prefix
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> let users decide whether the semantics are per-record or
> >>>>>>>>>>> per-query:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics as all other vendors
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> OR
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please check how other vendors are handling this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATE MySql, Oracle
> >>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATETIME SQL Server
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 02.02.21 07:02, Jingsong Li wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for the default "auto" to the
> >>>>>>>>> "table.exec.time-function-evaluation".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From the definition of these functions, in my opinion:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Batch is the instant execution of all records, which is the
> >>>>>>>> meaning
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the word "BATCH", so there is only one time at query-start.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Stream only executes a single record in a moment, so time is
> >>>>>>>>>>> generated by
> >>>>>>>>>>>> each record.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, we should be more careful about consistency
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jingsong
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:24 AM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard, Timo,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I just did some investigation and found all the other batch
> >>>>>>>>> processing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate the time functions at query-start, including
> >>>>>>> Snowflake,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hive,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark, Trino.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering whether the default 'per-record' mode will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> still be
> >>>>>>>>>>> weird for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> batch users.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we proposed the option for batch users to change the
> >>>>>>>> behavior.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> However if 90% users need to set this config before
> submitting
> >>>>>>>> batch
> >>>>>>>>>>> jobs,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> why not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> use this mode for batch by default? For the other 10% special
> >>>>>>>> users,
> >>>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> set the config to per-record before submitting batch jobs. I
> >>>>>>>> believe
> >>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can greatly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the usability for batch cases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, what do you think about using "auto" as the
> default
> >>>>>>>> option
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> value?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It evaluates time functions per-record in streaming mode and
> >>>>>>>>> evaluates
> >>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this can make both streaming users and batch users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> happy.
> >>>>>>>>>>> IIUC, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing the default "per-record" mode is for the batch
> >>>>>>> streaming
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think time functions are special cases because
> they
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally non-deterministic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if streaming jobs and batch jobs all use "per-record"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mode,
> >>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can't provide consistent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> results. Thus, I think we may need to think more from the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> users'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 23:06, Timo Walther <
> twalthr@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for considering this issue as well. +1 for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> >>>>>>>>> config
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> option. Let's start a voting thread once the FLIP document
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>> been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated if there are no other concerns?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 15:07, Leonard Xu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve discussed with @Timo @Jark about the time function
> >>>>>>>> evaluation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> further. We reach a consensus that we’d better address the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>> function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation(function value materialization) in this FLIP as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We’re fine with introducing an option
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> table.exec.time-function-evaluation to control the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize
> >>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>> point
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time function value. The time function includes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The default value of table.exec.time-function-evaluation is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'per-record', which means Flink evaluates the function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> value per
> >>>>>>>>>>> record,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend users config this option value for their streaming
> >>>>>>> pipe
> >>>>>>>>>>> lines.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another valid option value is ’query-start’, which means
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function value at the query start, we recommend users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> option value for their batch pipelines.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, more valid evaluation option value like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘auto'
> >>>>>>> may
> >>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported if there’re new requirements, e.g： support ‘auto’
> >>>>>>> option
> >>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates time function value per-record in streaming mode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time function value at query start in batch mode.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative1:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduce function like
> >>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP2/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP_NOW
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which evaluates function value at query start. This may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
> >>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we provide two similar functions but with different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> >>>>>>>>> value.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative2:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not introduce any configuration/function, control
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function evaluation by pipeline execution mode. This may
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result when user use their streaming pipeline sql to run a
> >>>>>>> batch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline(e.g backfilling), and user also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can not control these function behavior.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you think ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 在 2021年2月1日，18:23，Timo Walther
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tw...@apache.org> 写道：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parts of the FLIP can already be implemented without a
> >>>>>>> completed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting, e.g. there is no doubt that we should support
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I don't see a benefit of reworking the time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework them again later. If we lock the time on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> query-start the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the previsouly mentioned functions will be
> >>>>>>>>>>> completely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 02:37, Kurt Young wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also prefer to not expand this FLIP further, but we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>> open
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion thread
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right after this FLIP being accepted and start coding &
> >>>>>>>>> reviewing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technique
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion and coding more pipelined will improve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:47 PM Leonard Xu <
> >>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think that this topic must be part of the FLIP as
> >>>>>>> well.
> >>>>>>>>> Esp.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP has the title "time function behavior" and this is
> >>>>>>>> clearly
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavioral aspect. We are performing a heavy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactoring of
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> query
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics in Flink here which will affect a lot of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. We
> >>>>>>>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time functions a third time after this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I checked a couple of other vendors. It seems that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they all
> >>>>>>>>> lock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp when the query is started. And as you said, in
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature (Oracle) and less mature systems (Hive, MySQL)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP-162> “These problems come from the fact that lots
> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> time-related
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions like PROCTIME(), NOW(), CURRENT_DATE,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP are returning time values based on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+0
> >>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> zone."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The motivation of FLIP-162 is to correct the wrong
> >>>>>>>> time-related
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value which caused by timezone. And after our discussed
> >>>>>>>> before,
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's related to the function return type compared to SQL
> >>>>>>>>> standard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors and thus we proposed make the function return
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the exact meaning of the FLIP title and that
> the
> >>>>>>> FLIP
> >>>>>>>>>>> plans
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for the function materialization mechanism, we
> didn't
> >>>>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a part of our plan because we need to fix the timezone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues no matter we modify the function materialization
> >>>>>>>>> mechanism
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I think it's not belong to this FLIP scope.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will have been a great work if we can fix current
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP's
> >>>>>>> 7
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, we don't want to expand the scope again Eps it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>> part
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plan.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? @Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what’s others' thoughts? @Jark @Kurt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink should not differ. I fear that we have to adopt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well to call us standard compliant. Otherwise it will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have Hive compatibility with proper semantics. It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>> lead
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintended behavior.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see two options for this topic:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Clearly distinguish between query-start and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> >>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MySQL offers NOW() and SYSDATE() to distinguish the two
> >>>>>>>>>>> semantics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could run all the previously discussed functions that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>>>>> meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems in query-start time and use a different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. `SYS_TIMESTAMP`, `SYS_DATE`, `SYS_TIME`,
> >>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALTIMESTAMP`,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALDATE`, `SYS_LOCALTIME`?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Introduce a config option
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are non-compliant by default and allow typical batch
> >>>>>>>>> behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed via a config option. But batch/stream unification
> >>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we disable certain unification aspects by default.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 16:51, Leonard Xu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that I need to open another discussion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>> befoe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think we should also discuss this in this FLIP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>> pops
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up at a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later stage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we want our time functions to behave in long
> >>>>>>> running
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s okay to open this thread. Although I don’t want
> to
> >>>>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function value materialization in this FLIP scope, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>> try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See also:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5522656/sql-now-in-long-running-query
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this was never discussed thoroughly. Actually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP should have
> slightly
> >>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics than PROCTIME(). What it is our current
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior?
> >>>>>>>> Are
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materializing those time values during planning?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both Batch and Stream world, the function value is
> >>>>>>>> materialized
> >>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> per
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record not the query start(plan phase).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For PROCTIME(), it also keeps same behavior in both
> >>>>>>> Batch
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world, in fact we just supported PROCTIME() in Batch
> last
> >>>>>>>>> week[1].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, we keep same semantics/behavior for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch and
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stream.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Esp. long running batch queries might suffer from
> >>>>>>>>>>> inconsistencies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. When a timestamp is produced by one operator using
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a different one might filter relating to
> >>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s a good question, and I've found some users have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> simillar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions in user/user-zh mail-list, given a fact
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that many
> >>>>>>>>> Batch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Hive/Presto using the value of query start, but
> it’s
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream engine, for example user will use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> define
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> event
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a unified Batch/Stream SQL engine, keep same
> >>>>>>>>>>> semantics/behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important, and I agree the Batch user case should also
> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> considered.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think this should be discussed in another
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic like
> >>>>>>>>> 'the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unification of Batch/Stream' which is beyond the scope
> of
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>> FLIP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This FLIP aims to correct the wrong return type/return
> >>>>>>> value
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868
> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 13:46, Leonard Xu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Jark
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a minor suggestion:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we will still suggest users use TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ. Then it seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing TIMESTAMP_NTZ doesn't help much for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users,
> >>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces more learning costs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your suggestion makes sense, we should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP for TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE as we did now,
> >>>>>>>> updated
> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original type name :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcut type name :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP / TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
> >>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
> >>>>>>>>> <=>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ (supports them in the future)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 18:52, Leonard Xu <
> >>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com> <mailto:xbjtdcq@gmail.com <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for sharing your opinions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we’ve reached a consensus about the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are we on the same page that LOCALTIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>> returns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ? Maybe we should quickly list also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALDATE and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP for completeness.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, LOCALTIMESTAMP returns TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME
> >>>>>>> returns
> >>>>>>>>>>> TIME,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of them is clear so I just listed them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> excel[1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP references.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Shall we add aliases for the timestamp types
> as
> >>>>>>> part
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP? I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Snowflake supports TIMESTAMP_LTZ ,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ ,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think the discussion was quite cumbersome with the
> >>>>>>> full
> >>>>>>>>>>> string
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE`. With this FLIP
> we
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>> making
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more prominent. And important concepts should
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> short
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are used frequently. According to the
> >>>>>>> FLIP,
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the abbriviation already in function names like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ`.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP_LTZ` could be treated similar to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `STRING`
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `VARCHAR(MAX_INT)`, the serializable string
> >>>>>>>> representation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not change.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo @Jark
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice idea, I also suffered from the long name
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abbreviation will not only help us, but also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it
> >>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. I list the abbreviation name mapping to
> >>>>>>> support:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ
> >>>>>>>>>>> (which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE <=>
> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE <=>
> >>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (supports
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the future)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) I'm fine with supporting all conversion
> classes
> >>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime, java.sql.Timestamp that
> >>>>>>>>>>> TimestampType
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for LocalZonedTimestampType. But we agree that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instant
> >>>>>>>>> stays
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion class right? The default extraction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Instant stays the default conversion class.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>> default
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) I would remove the comment "Flink supports
> >>>>>>>>> TIME-related
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision well", because unfortunately this is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have issues with TIME(9), it would be great if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
> >>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though. Maybe the implementation of this FLIP
> would
> >>>>>>> be a
> >>>>>>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fix
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this issue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re right, TIME(9) is not supported yet, I'll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>>>>> account
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the scope of this FLIP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve updated this FLIP[2] according your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions
> >>>>>>>> @Jark
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll start the vote soon if there’re no
> objections.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 03:18, Jark Wu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the further investigation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we all agree we should correct the
> return
> >>>>>>>> value
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the return type of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
> I
> >>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>> agree
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more worldwide useful. This may need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>> effort,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right direction, we should do it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the CURRENT_TIME, if CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>> returns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ, then I think CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't
> >>>>>>>>> return
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME_TZ.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, CURRENT_TIME will be quite special
> and
> >>>>>>>>> strange.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think it has to return TIME type. Given
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> already
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE which returns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE WITHOUT TIME ZONE, I think it's fine to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> >>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITHOUT
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for CURRENT_TIME.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a word, the updated FLIP looks good to me. I
> >>>>>>>>> especially
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed new function TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ(numeric,
> >>>>>>>>> [,scale]).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will be very convenient to define rowtime
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a
> >>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> value
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very common case and has been complained a lot
> in
> >>>>>>>>> mailing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 21:12, Kurt Young <
> >>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the detailed response and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> bad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1, these all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also nice catch about conversion support of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalZonedTimestampType, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it actually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to support java.sql.Timestamp as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime. It also has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slight benefit that we might have a chance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> udf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which took
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as input parameter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after we change the return type.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to the return type of CURRENT_TIME, I
> >>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is not useful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To not expand this FLIP further, I'm lean to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Leonard Xu <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, All
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I think all of the
> >>>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The return values of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be different whether from SQL standard’s
> >>>>>>> perspective
> >>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) The semantics of three TIMESTAMP types in
> >>>>>>> Flink
> >>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard and also keeps the same with other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'good'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>> => A
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to describe a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
> >>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info, can not represent an absolute time
> point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL ZONE => Records the
> >>>>>>>> elapsed
> >>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point origin, can represent an absolute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>> point,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time zone when expressed with ‘yyyy-MM-dd
> >>>>>>> HH:mm:ss’
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> format.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE => Consists of
> >>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>> zone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to
> >>>>>>> describe
> >>>>>>>>>>> time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently we've two ways to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME().
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (1): As the FLIP proposed, change the
> >>>>>>> return
> >>>>>>>>>>> value
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone to local timezone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) The change looks smaller to
> >>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There're many SQL engines adopted this way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) connector devs may confuse
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampData which needs to change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to
> >>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this weekend. Unfortunately I found a
> bad
> >>>>>>>> case:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposal is fine if we only use it in
> FLINK
> >>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>> world,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider the conversion between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table/DataStream,
> >>>>>>>>>>> assume a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC+0 timezone with TIMESTAMP '1970-01-01
> >>>>>>>> 08:00:44'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes the data with session time zone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'UTC+8',
> >>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to convert the Table to DataStream, then we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in StreamRecord with session time zone
> (UTC+8),
> >>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get 44 in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream program, but it is wrong because
> the
> >>>>>>>>> expected
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (8
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 60 * 60 + 44). The corner case tell us
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME/PROCTIME in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are based on UTC+0, when correct the
> PROCTIME()
> >>>>>>>>>>> function,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps
> >>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on UTC+0 and can be expressed with
> local
> >>>>>>>>>>> timezone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (2) : As we considered in the FLIP as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the return type to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
> >>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>> ZONE,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value depends on the local time zone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) Make Flink SQL more close to
> >>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard (2)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conversion between Table/DataStream well
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) We need to discuss the return
> >>>>>>>>>>> value/type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function (2) The change is bigger to users, we
> >>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE in connectors/formats
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well
> >>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3)The TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
> >>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Flink, thus we need some improvement，but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> workload
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as we are doing the right thing ^_^
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to the above bad case for option (1). I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>> option 2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we also need to consider some problems:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) More conversion classes like
> LocalDateTime,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql.Timestamp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported for LocalZonedTimestampType to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> UDF
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The timezone offset for window size of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one day
> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) All connectors/formats should supports
> >>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>> WITH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and we also should record in document
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll update these sections of FLIP-162.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also need to discuss the CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>> function. I
> >>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is using TIME WITH TIME ZONE(there's no TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
> >>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't support this type yet and I don't see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, the
> CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point which should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered as
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> string
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with 'HH:mm:ss' format and time zone
> info.
> >>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) We can forbid CURRENT_TIME as @Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions follow the standard well, in this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance for user upgrading Flink versions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) We can also support it from a user's
> >>>>>>> perspective
> >>>>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
> >>>>>>>>>>> btw，Snowflake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME type.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Returns TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP as Calcite did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can image (1) which we don't want to left
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bad
> >>>>>>>>> smell
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also accept (2) because I think users do not
> >>>>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they use CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> timezone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not very useful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t have a strong opinion for them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do
> >>>>>>>>> others
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I've addressed your concerns. @Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best，
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the mature systems have a clear
> >>>>>>> difference
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
> >>>>>>>> take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good example. Snowflake decided for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
> >>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the last comment, I could also
> >>>>>>> imagine
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. But in any case, there should be some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>> zone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered in order to cast to all other
> types.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
> >>>>>>>>> supporting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
> >>>>>>>>> replacement
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still add those functions in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
> >>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>> since
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a TIME WITH TIME ZONE, it is better to not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. And by the way, this is exactly the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server does: it also just supports
> >>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>> (but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP without a zone which completes the
> >>>>>>>>> confusion).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
> >>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
> >>>>>>>>>>> refactor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a UDF perspective, I think nothing will
> >>>>>>>>> change.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and type inference were designed to support
> all
> >>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why Java has adopted Joda time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>> hard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good time library. That's why also we and the
> >>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hadoop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecosystem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have decided for 3 different kinds of
> >>>>>>> LocalDateTime,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZonedDateTime,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instance. It makes the library more complex,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also doubt that many users work with only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an example, a country with 3 different
> >>>>>>> timezones.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US data cannot properly see the data points
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the other hand, a lot of event data is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored
> >>>>>>>>> using a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details,
> let's
> >>>>>>>> take a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> step
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind
> of
> >>>>>>> date
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
> >>>>>>> (if
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
> >>>>>>> UTC
> >>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt: I think we all agree that the current
> >>>>>>>> behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC is wrong. Also, we all agree that when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME a user would like to see the time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in it's
> >>>>>>>>>>> current
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you said, "my wall clock time".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the question is what is the data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
> >>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "see". If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass this record on to a different system,
> >>>>>>> operator,
> >>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should the "my" get lost or materialized
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
> >>>>>>>>>>> record?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP -> completely lost and could cause
> >>>>>>>>> confusion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE -> at least
> the
> >>>>>>> UTC
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can provide a new local time zone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE -> also "your"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22.01.21 09:38, Kurt Young wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forgot one more thing. Continue with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> displaying
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to display the timestamp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC, why don't we offer something like
> >>>>>>>>>>> UTC_TIMESTAMP?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:33 PM Kurt Young <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details,
> let's
> >>>>>>>> take a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> step
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind
> of
> >>>>>>> date
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (if
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
> >>>>>>> UTC
> >>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone? I think this part is the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that surprised lots of users. If we
> >>>>>>> forget
> >>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal representation of these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two methods, as a user, my instinct tells
> me
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display my wall clock time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Display time in UTC? I'm not sure, why I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>> care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to get my current timestamp.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those users who have never gone abroad,
> >>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>> might
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that this is affected
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time zone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:25 PM Leonard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xu <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks @Timo for the detailed reply,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's go
> >>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, I've merged all mails to this
> >>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
> >>>>>>> Almost
> >>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
> >>>>>>> systems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
> >>>>>>>>> information
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
> >>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
> >>>>>>>>> difference
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
> >>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that the two series should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glance,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different SQL engines can have their own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations，for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP are
> >>>>>>>> synonyms
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake[1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no difference, and Spark only supports the
> >>>>>>> later
> >>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP[2].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and
> let
> >>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>> pick
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
> >>>>>>>>> supporting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
> >>>>>>>>> replacement
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>> WITH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to
> all
> >>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for
> filter
> >>>>>>>>>>> predicates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE indeed contains
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> information to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point, but the type TIMESTAMP can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cast
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types combining with session time zone as
> >>>>>>> well,
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter predicates. For type casting
> between
> >>>>>>>> BIGINT
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function way using
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO_TIMEMTAMP()/FROM_UNIXTIMESTAMP()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
> >>>>>>> based
> >>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
> >>>>>>> system
> >>>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We discussed it in a different thread,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we
> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globally. People need a way to create
> >>>>>>> instances
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE. This is not considered in the
> >>>>>>> current
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> design
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many pipelines contain UTC timestamps and
> >>>>>>> thus
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be easy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, both CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and
> >>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we should remember that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
> >>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp data types as casting target
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We
> >>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE in the future for ROWTIME.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
> >>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
> >>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
> >>>>>>>>>>> refactor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
> >>>>>>>> used,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> many
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and UDFs doest not support
> >>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>> WITH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means both user and Flink devs need
> to
> >>>>>>>>> refactor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code(UDF,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions, sql pipeline), to be honest, I
> >>>>>>> didn’t
> >>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have to do the pretty big refactor from
> >>>>>>>> user’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer’s perspective.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, both your suggestion and my
> >>>>>>>> proposal
> >>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user problems，the divergence is whether we
> >>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> spend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a bit more accurate semantics? I
> >>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradeoff.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-22，00:53，Timo Walther <
> >>>>>>>>> twalthr@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for working on this topic. I agree
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy in Flink at the moment. We added
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new time
> >>>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not supported which even further
> >>>>>>>> complicates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)). We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should definitely improve this situation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> users.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a pretty opinionated topic and it
> >>>>>>> seems
> >>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not really deciding this but is at
> least
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let me
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> express
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my opinion for the most important
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think those are the most obvious ones
> >>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the locality should be materialized
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> result
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information (coming from session config or
> >>>>>>> data)
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
> >>>>>>> Almost
> >>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
> >>>>>>> systems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
> >>>>>>>>> information
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
> >>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
> >>>>>>>>> difference
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
> >>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and
> let
> >>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>> pick
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>> WITH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>>> every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to
> all
> >>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for
> filter
> >>>>>>>>>>> predicates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
> >>>>>>> based
> >>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
> >>>>>>> system
> >>>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC. We
> >>>>>>> discussed
> >>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we should allow PROCTIME globally.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People
> >>>>>>>>> need a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances of TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
> >>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current design doc. Many pipelines
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain UTC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be easy to create one. Also, both
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP can work with this type
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE accepts all
> >>>>>>>>> timestamp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target [1]. We could allow TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH TIME
> >>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
> >>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
> >>>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would like to design this with less
> >>>>>>>> effort
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> required,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about returning TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
> >>>>>>> TIME
> >>>>>>>>> ZONE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try to involve more people into
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，22:32，Leonard Xu <
> >>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
> >>>>>>>> reply,
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
> >>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected behavior
> >>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
> >>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Kurt, thanks for the intuitive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, it
> >>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wright
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I want to propose to change the
> return
> >>>>>>>> value
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most important part of the topic from
> >>>>>>> user's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Jark, nice suggestion, I prepared a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the FLIP discussion soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
> >>>>>>>> window
> >>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
> >>>>>>> statistical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> results
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To zhisheng, sorry to hear that this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> influenced
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs, Could you share your SQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern? we
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to resolve them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，14:19，Jark Wu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <im...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great examples to understand the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for investigating this
> >>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time-zone problems around time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bothered a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of users. It's time to fix them!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return value changes sound
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to
> >>>>>>>> me,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type unchanged will minimize the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surprise to
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides that, I think it would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better to
> >>>>>>>>> mention
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window behaviors, and the
> interoperability
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ====================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi zhisheng,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have examples to illustrate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which case
> >>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundaries?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That will help to verify whether the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> >>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:54，zhisheng
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <17...@qq.com>
> >>>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Leonard Xu for discussing this
> >>>>>>> tricky
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many Flink jobs in our
> production
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count day-level reports (eg: count PV/UV
> >>>>>>>> ).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
> >>>>>>> window
> >>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
> >>>>>>>>>>> results
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
> >>>>>>>>> manually
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Flink itself can solve these time zone
> >>>>>>>> issues,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be user-friendly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best!;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zhisheng
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:11，Kurt Young <
> >>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cc this to user & user-zh mailing list
> >>>>>>> because
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users, and also quite a lot of users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were asking questions around this topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me try to understand this from user's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your proposal will affect five functions,
> >>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>> are:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
> >>>>>>> reply,
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> got:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
> >>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior will
> >>>>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
> >>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
> >>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
> >>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-162: Consistent Flink SQL time function behavior
Posted by Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>.
and btw it is interesting to notice that AWS seems to do the approach
that I suggested first.
All functions are SQL standard compliant, and only dedicated functions
with a prefix such as CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP divert from the standard.
Regards,
Timo
On 01.03.21 08:45, Timo Walther wrote:
> How about we simply go for your first approach by having [query-start,
> row, auto] as configuration parameters where [auto] is the default?
>
> This sounds like a good consensus where everyone is happy, no?
>
> This also allows user to restore the old per-row behavior for all
> functions that we had before Flink 1.13.
>
> Regards,
> Timo
>
>
> On 26.02.21 11:10, Leonard Xu wrote:
>> Thanks Joe for the great investigation.
>>
>>
>>> • Generally urging for semantics (batch > time of first query
>>> issued, streaming > row level).
>>> I discussed the thing now with Timo & Stephan:
>>> • It seems to go towards a config parameter, either [query-start,
>>> row] or [query-start, row, auto] and what is the default?
>>> • The main question seems to be: are we pushing the default
>>> towards streaming. (probably related the insert into behaviour in the
>>> sql client).
>>
>>
>> It looks like opinions in this thread and user inputs agreed that:
>> batch should use time of first query, streaming should use row level.
>> Based on these, we should keep row level for streaming and query start
>> for batch just like the config parameter value [auto].
>>
>> Currently Flink keeps row level for time function in both batch and
>> streaming job, thus we only need to update the behavior in batch.
>>
>> I tend to not expose an obscure configuration to users especially it
>> is semantics-related.
>>
>> 1.We can make [auto] as a default agreement，for current Flink
>> streaming users，they feel nothing has changed，for current Flink
>> batch users，they feel Flink batch is corrected to other good batch
>> engines as well as SQL standard. We can also provide a function
>> CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP[1] for Flink batch users who want row level time
>> function.
>>
>> 2. CURRENT_ROW_TIMESTAMP can also be used in Flink streaming, it has
>> clear semantics, we can encourage users to use it.
>>
>> In this way, We don’t have to introduce an obscure configuration
>> prematurely while making all users happy
>>
>> How do you think?
>>
>> Best,
>> Leonard
>> [1]
>> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/kinesisanalytics/latest/sqlref/sql-reference-current-row-timestamp.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hope this helps,
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>> On 19.02.2021, at 10:25, Leonard Xu <xb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Joe
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for volunteering to investigate the user data on this topic.
>>>> Do you
>>>> have any progress here?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Leonard
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:08 PM Johannes Moser
>>>> <jo...@data-artisans.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A quick thought on this thread: We see a typical stalemate here,
>>>>>> as in so
>>>>>> many discussions recently.
>>>>>> One developer prefers it this way, another one another way. Both have
>>>>>> pro/con arguments, it takes a lot of time from everyone, still
>>>>>> there is
>>>>>> little progress in the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ultimately, this can only be decided by talking to the users. And it
>>>>>> would also be the best way to ensure that what we build is the
>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>> and expected way for users.
>>>>>> The less the users are into the deep aspects of Flink SQL, the better
>>>>> they
>>>>>> can mirror what a common user would expect (a power user will anyways
>>>>>> figure it out).
>>>>>> Let's find a person to drive that, spell it out in the FLIP as
>>>>>> "semantics
>>>>>> TBD", and focus on the implementation of the parts that are agreed
>>>>>> upon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For interviewing the users, here are some ideas for questions to
>>>>>> look at:
>>>>>> - How do they view the trade-off between stable semantics vs.
>>>>>> out-of-the-box magic (faster getting started).
>>>>>> - How comfortable are they realizing the different meaning of
>>>>>> "now()" in
>>>>>> a streaming versus batch context.
>>>>>> - What would be their expectation when moving a query with the time
>>>>>> functions ("now()") from an unbounded stream (Kafka source without
>>>>>> end
>>>>>> offset) to a bounded stream (Kafka source with end offsets), which
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> switch execution to batch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Stephan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:19 PM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Fabian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we have an agreement that the functions should be
>>>>>>> evaluated at
>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>> Because all the other batch systems and traditional databases are
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> behavior, which is standard SQL compliant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *1. The different point of view is what's the behavior in streaming
>>>>> mode? *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From my point of view, I don't see any potential meaning to
>>>>>>> evaluate at
>>>>>>> query-start for a 365-day long running streaming job.
>>>>>>> And from my observation, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is heavily used by Flink
>>>>>>> streaming users and they expect the current behaviors.
>>>>>>> The SQL standard only provides a guideline for traditional batch
>>>>> systems,
>>>>>>> however Flink is a leading streaming processing system
>>>>>>> which is out of the scope of SQL standard, and Flink should
>>>>>>> define the
>>>>>>> streaming standard. I think a standard should follow users'
>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>> Therefore, I think we don't need to be standard SQL compliant at
>>>>>>> this
>>>>> point
>>>>>>> because users don't expect it.
>>>>>>> Changing the behavior of the functions to evaluate at query start
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> streaming mode will hurt most of Flink SQL users and we have
>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>> gain,
>>>>>>> we should avoid this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *2. Does it break the unified streaming-batch semantics? *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think so. First of all, what's the unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>> semantic?
>>>>>>> I think it means the* eventual result* instead of the *behavior*.
>>>>>>> It's hard to say we have provided unified behavior for streaming and
>>>>> batch
>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>> because for example unbounded aggregate behaves very differently.
>>>>>>> In batch mode, it only evaluates once for the bounded data and
>>>>>>> emits the
>>>>>>> aggregate result once.
>>>>>>> But in streaming mode, it evaluates for each row and emits the
>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>> What we have always emphasized "unified streaming-batch
>>>>>>> semantics" is
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a query produces exactly the same result regardless whether its
>>>>>>>> input
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> static batch data or streaming data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From my understanding, the "semantic" means the "eventual result".
>>>>>>> And time functions are non-deterministic, so it's reasonable to get
>>>>>>> different results for batch and streaming mode.
>>>>>>> Therefore, I think it doesn't break the unified streaming-batch
>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>> to evaluate per-record for streaming and
>>>>>>> query-start for batch, as the semantic doesn't means behavior
>>>>>>> semantic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]: https://flink.apache.org/news/2017/04/04/dynamic-tables.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 18:34, Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry for joining this discussion late.
>>>>>>>> Let me give some thought to two of the arguments raised in this
>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Time functions are inherently non-determintistic:
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> This is of course true, but IMO it doesn't mean that the
>>>>>>>> semantics of
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> functions do not matter.
>>>>>>>> It makes a difference whether a function is evaluated once and it's
>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>> is reused or whether it is invoked for every record.
>>>>>>>> Would you use the same logic to justify different behavior of
>>>>>>>> RAND() in
>>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Provide the semantics that most users expect:
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> I don't think it is clear what most users expect, esp. if we also
>>>>> include
>>>>>>>> future users (which we certainly want to gain) into this
>>>>>>>> assessment.
>>>>>>>> Our current users got used to the semantics that we introduced.
>>>>>>>> So I
>>>>>>>> wouldn't be surprised if they would say stick with the current
>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>> However, we are also claiming standard SQL compliance and stress
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> goal
>>>>>>>> of batch-stream unification.
>>>>>>>> So I would assume that new SQL users expect standard compliant
>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> batch and streaming queries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO, we should try hard to stick to our goals of 1) unified
>>>>>>> batch-streaming
>>>>>>>> semantics and 2) SQL standard compliance.
>>>>>>>> For me this means that the semantics of the functions should be
>>>>> adjusted
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be evaluated at query start by default for batch and streaming
>>>>>>>> queries.
>>>>>>>> Obviously this would affect *many* current users of streaming SQL.
>>>>>>>> For those we should provide two solutions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Add alternative methods that provide the current behavior of the
>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>> I like Timo's proposal to add a prefix like SYS_ (or PROC_) but
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>> too much about the names.
>>>>>>>> The important point is that users need alternative functions to
>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> desired semantics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) Add a configuration option to reestablish the current
>>>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>> IMO, the configuration option should not be considered as a
>>>>>>>> permanent
>>>>>>>> option but rather as a migration path towards the "right" (standard
>>>>>>>> compliant) behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best, Fabian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Di., 2. Feb. 2021 um 09:51 Uhr schrieb Kurt Young
>>>>>>>> <ykt836@gmail.com
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW I also don't like to introduce an option for this case at the
>>>>>>>>> first step.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we can find a default behavior which can make 90% users
>>>>>>>>> happy, we
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> do it. If the remaining
>>>>>>>>> 10% percent users start to complain about the fixed behavior (it's
>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> possible that they don't complain ever),
>>>>>>>>> we could offer an option to make them happy. If it turns out
>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> wrong estimation about the user's
>>>>>>>>> expectation, we should change the default behavior.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:46 PM Kurt Young <yk...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think batch-stream unification can deal with all the
>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>> especially if
>>>>>>>>>> the query involves some non deterministic functions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No matter we choose any options, these queries will have
>>>>>>>>>> different results.
>>>>>>>>>> For example, if we run the same query in batch mode multiple
>>>>>>>>>> times,
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> highly possible that we get different results. Does that mean
>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>> database
>>>>>>>>>> vendors can't deliver batch-batch unification? I don't think so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's really important here is the user's intuition. What do
>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> they don't read any documents about these functions. For batch
>>>>>>> users, I
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>> it's already clear enough that all other systems and databases
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> evaluate
>>>>>>>>>> these functions during query start. And for streaming users, I
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> already seen
>>>>>>>>>> some users are expecting these functions to be calculated per
>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think we can make the behavior determined together with
>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>> One exception would be PROCTIME(), I think all users would expect
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>> will be calculated for each record. I think
>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is
>>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>> to PROCTIME(), so we don't have to introduce it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 4:20 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if we should introduce the `auto` mode. Taking
>>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>>> previous discussions around batch-stream unification into
>>>>>>>>>>> account,
>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>> mode and streaming mode should only influence the runtime
>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> incremental computation. The final query result should be the
>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> both modes. Also looking into the long-term future, we might
>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> mode property and either derive the mode or use different
>>>>>>>>>>> modes for
>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I think we may need to think more from the users' perspective."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree here and that's why I actually would like to let the
>>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>> which semantics are needed. The config option proposal was my
>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>> favored alternative. We should stick to the standard and
>>>>>>>>>>> bahavior of
>>>>>>>>>>> other systems. For both batch and streaming. And use a simple
>>>>>>>>>>> prefix
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> let users decide whether the semantics are per-record or
>>>>>>>>>>> per-query:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics as all other vendors
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OR
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SYS_CURRENT_TIMESTAMP -- semantics per record
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please check how other vendors are handling this:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATE MySql, Oracle
>>>>>>>>>>> SYSDATETIME SQL Server
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 02.02.21 07:02, Jingsong Li wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for the default "auto" to the
>>>>>>>>> "table.exec.time-function-evaluation".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the definition of these functions, in my opinion:
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Batch is the instant execution of all records, which is the
>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the word "BATCH", so there is only one time at query-start.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Stream only executes a single record in a moment, so time is
>>>>>>>>>>> generated by
>>>>>>>>>>>> each record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, we should be more careful about consistency
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jingsong
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:24 AM Jark Wu <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard, Timo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just did some investigation and found all the other batch
>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluate the time functions at query-start, including
>>>>>>> Snowflake,
>>>>>>>>>>> Hive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark, Trino.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering whether the default 'per-record' mode will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still be
>>>>>>>>>>> weird for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we proposed the option for batch users to change the
>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However if 90% users need to set this config before submitting
>>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>> jobs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use this mode for batch by default? For the other 10% special
>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set the config to per-record before submitting batch jobs. I
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can greatly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the usability for batch cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, what do you think about using "auto" as the default
>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It evaluates time functions per-record in streaming mode and
>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this can make both streaming users and batch users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happy.
>>>>>>>>>>> IIUC, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing the default "per-record" mode is for the batch
>>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think time functions are special cases because they
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally non-deterministic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if streaming jobs and batch jobs all use "per-record"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode,
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't provide consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results. Thus, I think we may need to think more from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 23:06, Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for considering this issue as well. +1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option. Let's start a voting thread once the FLIP document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated if there are no other concerns?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 15:07, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve discussed with @Timo @Jark about the time function
>>>>>>>> evaluation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further. We reach a consensus that we’d better address the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation(function value materialization) in this FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We’re fine with introducing an option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table.exec.time-function-evaluation to control the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time function value. The time function includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The default value of table.exec.time-function-evaluation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'per-record', which means Flink evaluates the function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value per
>>>>>>>>>>> record,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend users config this option value for their streaming
>>>>>>> pipe
>>>>>>>>>>> lines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another valid option value is ’query-start’, which means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function value at the query start, we recommend users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option value for their batch pipelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, more valid evaluation option value like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘auto'
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported if there’re new requirements, e.g： support ‘auto’
>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates time function value per-record in streaming mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> evaluates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time function value at query start in batch mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduce function like
>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP2/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP_NOW
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which evaluates function value at query start. This may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we provide two similar functions but with different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternative2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not introduce any configuration/function, control
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function evaluation by pipeline execution mode. This may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result when user use their streaming pipeline sql to run a
>>>>>>> batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline(e.g backfilling), and user also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can not control these function behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you think ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 在 2021年2月1日，18:23，Timo Walther
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tw...@apache.org> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parts of the FLIP can already be implemented without a
>>>>>>> completed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting, e.g. there is no doubt that we should support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I don't see a benefit of reworking the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework them again later. If we lock the time on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query-start the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the previsouly mentioned functions will be
>>>>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01.02.21 02:37, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also prefer to not expand this FLIP further, but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right after this FLIP being accepted and start coding &
>>>>>>>>> reviewing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion and coding more pipelined will improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 3:47 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do think that this topic must be part of the FLIP as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>> Esp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP has the title "time function behavior" and this is
>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavioral aspect. We are performing a heavy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refactoring of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> query
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics in Flink here which will affect a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. We
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time functions a third time after this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I checked a couple of other vendors. It seems that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they all
>>>>>>>>> lock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp when the query is started. And as you said, in
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature (Oracle) and less mature systems (Hive, MySQL)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP-162> “These problems come from the fact that lots of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions like PROCTIME(), NOW(), CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP are returning time values based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+0
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The motivation of FLIP-162 is to correct the wrong
>>>>>>>> time-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value which caused by timezone. And after our discussed
>>>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's related to the function return type compared to SQL
>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors and thus we proposed make the function return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the exact meaning of the FLIP title and that the
>>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>> plans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But for the function materialization mechanism, we didn't
>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a part of our plan because we need to fix the timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues no matter we modify the function materialization
>>>>>>>>> mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I think it's not belong to this FLIP scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will have been a great work if we can fix current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP's
>>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, we don't want to expand the scope again Eps it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what’s others' thoughts? @Jark @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink should not differ. I fear that we have to adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well to call us standard compliant. Otherwise it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have Hive compatibility with proper semantics. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> lead
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintended behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see two options for this topic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Clearly distinguish between query-start and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MySQL offers NOW() and SYSDATE() to distinguish the two
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could run all the previously discussed functions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems in query-start time and use a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. `SYS_TIMESTAMP`, `SYS_DATE`, `SYS_TIME`,
>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALTIMESTAMP`,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `SYS_LOCALDATE`, `SYS_LOCALTIME`?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Introduce a config option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are non-compliant by default and allow typical batch
>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed via a config option. But batch/stream unification
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we disable certain unification aspects by default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 16:51, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that I need to open another discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>> befoe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think we should also discuss this in this FLIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> pops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later stage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we want our time functions to behave in long
>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s okay to open this thread. Although I don’t want to
>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function value materialization in this FLIP scope, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See also:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5522656/sql-now-in-long-running-query
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this was never discussed thoroughly. Actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP should have slightly
>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics than PROCTIME(). What it is our current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior?
>>>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materializing those time values during planning?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW/LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both Batch and Stream world, the function value is
>>>>>>>> materialized
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record not the query start(plan phase).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For PROCTIME(), it also keeps same behavior in both
>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world, in fact we just supported PROCTIME() in Batch last
>>>>>>>>> week[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, we keep same semantics/behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Batch and
>>>>>>>>>>> Stream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Esp. long running batch queries might suffer from
>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here. When a timestamp is produced by one operator using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a different one might filter relating to
>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s a good question, and I've found some users have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simillar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions in user/user-zh mail-list, given a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that many
>>>>>>>>> Batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Hive/Presto using the value of query start, but it’s
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stream engine, for example user will use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a unified Batch/Stream SQL engine, keep same
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important, and I agree the Batch user case should also be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think this should be discussed in another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic like
>>>>>>>>> 'the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unification of Batch/Stream' which is beyond the scope of
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This FLIP aims to correct the wrong return type/return
>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17868>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 13:46, Leonard Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a minor suggestion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we will still suggest users use TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ. Then it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing TIMESTAMP_NTZ doesn't help much for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces more learning costs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your suggestion makes sense, we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP for TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE as we did now,
>>>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcut type name :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP / TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ (supports them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 18:52, Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com> <mailto:xbjtdcq@gmail.com <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks all for sharing your opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we’ve reached a consensus about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Are we on the same page that LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ? Maybe we should quickly list also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALDATE and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP for completeness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, LOCALTIMESTAMP returns TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME
>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>> TIME,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of them is clear so I just listed them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> excel[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP references.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Shall we add aliases for the timestamp types as
>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP? I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see Snowflake supports TIMESTAMP_LTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think the discussion was quite cumbersome with the
>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE`. With this FLIP we
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more prominent. And important concepts should
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are used frequently. According to the
>>>>>>> FLIP,
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the abbriviation already in function names like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ`.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `TIMESTAMP_LTZ` could be treated similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `STRING`
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `VARCHAR(MAX_INT)`, the serializable string
>>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice idea, I also suffered from the long name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abbreviation will not only help us, but also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users. I list the abbreviation name mapping to
>>>>>>> support:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_NTZ
>>>>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE <=> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE <=>
>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_TZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (supports
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the future)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) I'm fine with supporting all conversion classes
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime, java.sql.Timestamp that
>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampType
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for LocalZonedTimestampType. But we agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instant
>>>>>>>>> stays
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversion class right? The default extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Instant stays the default conversion class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) I would remove the comment "Flink supports
>>>>>>>>> TIME-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision well", because unfortunately this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have issues with TIME(9), it would be great if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though. Maybe the implementation of this FLIP would
>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re right, TIME(9) is not supported yet, I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>> account
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the scope of this FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve updated this FLIP[2] according your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions
>>>>>>>> @Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll start the vote soon if there’re no objections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T178krh9xG-WbVpN7mRVJ8bzFnaSJx3l-eg1EWZe_X4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162%3A+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-162:+Consistent+Flink+SQL+time+function+behavior
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28.01.21 03:18, Jark Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the further investigation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we all agree we should correct the return
>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the return type of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, I
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more worldwide useful. This may need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> effort,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right direction, we should do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the CURRENT_TIME, if CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP_LTZ, then I think CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME_TZ.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, CURRENT_TIME will be quite special and
>>>>>>>>> strange.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I think it has to return TIME type. Given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE which returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE WITHOUT TIME ZONE, I think it's fine to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITHOUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for CURRENT_TIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a word, the updated FLIP looks good to me. I
>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed new function TO_TIMESTAMP_LTZ(numeric,
>>>>>>>>> [,scale]).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This will be very convenient to define rowtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very common case and has been complained a lot in
>>>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 21:12, Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for the detailed response and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1, these all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also nice catch about conversion support of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LocalZonedTimestampType, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes sense to support java.sql.Timestamp as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.time.LocalDateTime. It also has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slight benefit that we might have a chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to run
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> udf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which took
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as input parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after we change the return type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding to the return type of CURRENT_TIME, I
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is not useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To not expand this FLIP further, I'm lean to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I think all of the
>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) The return values of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be different whether from SQL standard’s
>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) The semantics of three TIMESTAMP types in
>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard and also keeps the same with other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'good'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vendors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>> => A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to describe a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info, can not represent an absolute time point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL ZONE => Records the
>>>>>>>> elapsed
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point origin, can represent an absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>> point,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time zone when expressed with ‘yyyy-MM-dd
>>>>>>> HH:mm:ss’
>>>>>>>>>>>>> format.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE => Consists of
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literal in ‘yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss’ format to
>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently we've two ways to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP/NOW()/PROCTIME().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (1): As the FLIP proposed, change the
>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timezone to local timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) The change looks smaller to
>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There're many SQL engines adopted this way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) connector devs may confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TimestampData which needs to change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to
>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this weekend. Unfortunately I found a bad
>>>>>>>> case:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposal is fine if we only use it in FLINK
>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>> world,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider the conversion between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Table/DataStream,
>>>>>>>>>>> assume a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC+0 timezone with TIMESTAMP '1970-01-01
>>>>>>>> 08:00:44'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes the data with session time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'UTC+8',
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to convert the Table to DataStream, then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in StreamRecord with session time zone (UTC+8),
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get 44 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream program, but it is wrong because the
>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 60 * 60 + 44). The corner case tell us
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME/PROCTIME in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are based on UTC+0, when correct the PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>> function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on UTC+0 and can be expressed with local
>>>>>>>>>>> timezone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option (2) : As we considered in the FLIP as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the return type to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value depends on the local time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: (1) Make Flink SQL more close to
>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conversion between Table/DataStream well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: (1) We need to discuss the return
>>>>>>>>>>> value/type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function (2) The change is bigger to users, we
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE in connectors/formats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3)The TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Flink, thus we need some improvement，but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> workload
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as we are doing the right thing ^_^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to the above bad case for option (1). I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> option 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we also need to consider some problems:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) More conversion classes like LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sql.Timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported for LocalZonedTimestampType to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> UDF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) The timezone offset for window size of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one day
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) All connectors/formats should supports
>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well and we also should record in document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll update these sections of FLIP-162.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also need to discuss the CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>> function. I
>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is using TIME WITH TIME ZONE(there's no TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't support this type yet and I don't see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so far.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, the CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute time point which should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered as
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consisting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time with 'HH:mm:ss' format and time zone info.
>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) We can forbid CURRENT_TIME as @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions follow the standard well, in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance for user upgrading Flink versions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) We can also support it from a user's
>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>> btw，Snowflake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Returns TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP as Calcite did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can image (1) which we don't want to left
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bad
>>>>>>>>> smell
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also accept (2) because I think users do not
>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they use CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> timezone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not very useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t have a strong opinion for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do
>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope I've addressed your concerns. @Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best，
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the mature systems have a clear
>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good example. Snowflake decided for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the last comment, I could also
>>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink. But in any case, there should be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered in order to cast to all other types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still add those functions in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a TIME WITH TIME ZONE, it is better to not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. And by the way, this is exactly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server does: it also just supports
>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP without a zone which completes the
>>>>>>>>> confusion).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a UDF perspective, I think nothing will
>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and type inference were designed to support all
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why Java has adopted Joda time,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good time library. That's why also we and the
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> Hadoop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecosystem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have decided for 3 different kinds of
>>>>>>> LocalDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZonedDateTime,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instance. It makes the library more complex,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also doubt that many users work with only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an example, a country with 3 different
>>>>>>> timezones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> US data cannot properly see the data points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the other hand, a lot of event data is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored
>>>>>>>>> using a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details, let's
>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind of
>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt: I think we all agree that the current
>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC is wrong. Also, we all agree that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME a user would like to see the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in it's
>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you said, "my wall clock time".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the question is what is the data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "see". If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass this record on to a different system,
>>>>>>> operator,
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cluster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should the "my" get lost or materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>> record?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP -> completely lost and could cause
>>>>>>>>> confusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE -> at least the
>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can provide a new local time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE -> also "your"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persisted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22.01.21 09:38, Kurt Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Forgot one more thing. Continue with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> displaying
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to display the timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in UTC, why don't we offer something like
>>>>>>>>>>> UTC_TIMESTAMP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:33 PM Kurt Young <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before jumping into technique details, let's
>>>>>>>> take a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first important question is what kind of
>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display when users call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and maybe also PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should it always display the date and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time in
>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone? I think this part is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason that surprised lots of users. If we
>>>>>>> forget
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal representation of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two methods, as a user, my instinct tells me
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display my wall clock time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Display time in UTC? I'm not sure, why I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to get my current timestamp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those users who have never gone abroad,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realize that this is affected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:25 PM Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xu <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks @Timo for the detailed reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's go
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, I've merged all mails to this
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that the two series should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different SQL engines can have their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations，for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP are
>>>>>>>> synonyms
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake[1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no difference, and Spark only supports the
>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME/LOCALTIMESTAMP[2].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and let
>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME is
>>>>>>>>> supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE not, I don’t think it’s a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL standard supported and introducing a
>>>>>>>>> replacement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reminded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to all
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for filter
>>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE indeed contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time point, but the type TIMESTAMP can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cast
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types combining with session time zone as
>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filter predicates. For type casting between
>>>>>>>> BIGINT
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the function way using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO_TIMEMTAMP()/FROM_UNIXTIMESTAMP()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We discussed it in a different thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globally. People need a way to create
>>>>>>> instances
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE. This is not considered in the
>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many pipelines contain UTC timestamps and
>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, both CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and
>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we should remember that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepts all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp data types as casting target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME ZONE in the future for ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree returning TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear semantics, but I realized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that user
>>>>>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more about the expressed value they saw,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE brings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge
>>>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider all places where the TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>> used,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions and UDFs doest not support
>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means both user and Flink devs need to
>>>>>>>>> refactor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code(UDF,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builtin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions, sql pipeline), to be honest, I
>>>>>>> didn’t
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have to do the pretty big refactor from
>>>>>>>> user’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer’s perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In one word, both your suggestion and my
>>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user problems，the divergence is whether we
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a bit more accurate semantics? I
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tradeoff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://trino.io/docs/current/functions/datetime.html#current_timestamp
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-30374
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-22，00:53，Timo Walther <
>>>>>>>>> twalthr@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Leonard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for working on this topic. I agree
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy in Flink at the moment. We added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new time
>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not supported which even further
>>>>>>>> complicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME(9)). We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should definitely improve this situation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a pretty opinionated topic and it
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not really deciding this but is at least
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> express
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my opinion for the most important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE / LOCALTIME / LOCALTIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think those are the most obvious ones
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the locality should be materialized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information (coming from session config or
>>>>>>> data)
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE/CURRENT_TIME/CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> uses session time zone, returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE/TIME/TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very sceptical about this behavior.
>>>>>>> Almost
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oracle, Postgres) and new high quality
>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Presto,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snowflake)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data type with some degree of time zone
>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded. In a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalized world with businesses spanning
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should do this as well. There should be a
>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and LOCALTIMESTAMP. And
>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which behavior they prefer for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would design this from scatch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - drop CURRENT_DATE / CURRENT_TIME and let
>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALDATE /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIME for materialized timestamp parts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>> WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize all session time information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic data type and allows to cast to all
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This generic ability can be used for filter
>>>>>>>>>>> predicates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through implicit or explicit casting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME/ROWTIME should be time functions
>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System.currentMillis() and our watermark
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should return TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should always happen based on UTC. We
>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but we should allow PROCTIME globally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>> need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances of TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current design doc. Many pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be easy to create one. Also, both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCALTIMESTAMP can work with this type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL TIME ZONE accepts all
>>>>>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> casting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target [1]. We could allow TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITH TIME
>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROWTIME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, windows should simply adapt
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamp type. And with TIMESTAMP WITH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL
>>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the current session time zone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we would like to design this with less
>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think about returning TIMESTAMP WITH LOCAL
>>>>>>> TIME
>>>>>>>>> ZONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try to involve more people into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/sqlrf/Data-Types.html#GUID-E7CA339A-2093-4FE4-A36E-1D09593591D3
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，22:32，Leonard Xu <
>>>>>>> xbjtdcq@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected behavior
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Kurt, thanks for the intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case, it
>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I want to propose to change the return
>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most important part of the topic from
>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To Jark, nice suggestion, I prepared a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FLIP
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the FLIP discussion soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To zhisheng, sorry to hear that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>> influenced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobs, Could you share your SQL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern? we
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to resolve them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，14:19，Jark Wu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <im...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great examples to understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Kurt!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Leonard for investigating this
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The time-zone problems around time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bothered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of users. It's time to fix them!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return value changes sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to
>>>>>>>> me,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type unchanged will minimize the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surprise to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides that, I think it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better to
>>>>>>>>> mention
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window behaviors, and the interoperability
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this definitely deserves a FLIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ====================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi zhisheng,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have examples to illustrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which case
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundaries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That will help to verify whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:54，zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <17...@qq.com>
>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Leonard Xu for discussing this
>>>>>>> tricky
>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are many Flink jobs in our production
>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count day-level reports (eg: count PV/UV
>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL, the
>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Flink itself can solve these time zone
>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be user-friendly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best!;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zhisheng
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21，12:11，Kurt Young <
>>>>>>> ykt836@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cc this to user & user-zh mailing list
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users, and also quite a lot of users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were asking questions around this topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me try to understand this from user's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your proposal will affect five functions,
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROCTIME()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the changes, as I am writing this
>>>>>>> reply,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21 12:03:35 (Beijing time, UTC+8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I tried these 5 functions in sql
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T04:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>> 04:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the changes, the expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior will
>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink SQL> select now(), PROCTIME(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_DATE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | EXPR$0 |
>>>>>>>>>>> EXPR$1 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP | CURRENT_DATE |
>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIME
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-01-21T12:03:35.228 | 2021-01-21 |
>>>>>>>>>>> 12:03:35.228
>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> +-------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------+
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The return type of now(), proctime() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TIMESTAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>