[GitHub] [iceberg] kbendick commented on a change in pull request #3258: Flink: Fix CDC validation errors

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

kbendick commented on a change in pull request #3258:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/3258#discussion_r725531191



##########
File path: flink/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/flink/sink/IcebergFilesCommitter.java
##########
@@ -282,9 +281,14 @@ private void commitDeltaTxn(NavigableMap<Long, WriteResult> pendingResults, Stri
         // txn2, the equality-delete files of txn2 are required to be applied to data files from txn1. Committing the
         // merged one will lead to the incorrect delete semantic.

Review comment:
       Given the comment tat retries may push deletes further in the future, should we possibly reword this comment here?
   
   It states that `for the sequential transaction txn1 and txn2, the equality-delete files of txn2 are required to be applied to data files from txn1`.
   
   If equality-deletes could get pushed out further due to retries and other scenarios, would it be more appropriate for the above comment to read something like `equality-delete files of transaction N are required to be applied to data files from transactions strictly prior to N`? There's probably a better way to phrase it, but the above comment seems to still imply that equality delete files need to be applied strictly in the next transaction.




-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@iceberg.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@iceberg.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@iceberg.apache.org