Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC: Reusable Source Executor #72
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
RFC: Reusable Source Executor #72
Changes from 2 commits
31071c6
6ad291a
3a043a6
459483e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess this "optimization" is necessary, as there're kinds of sources that do not support rewinding the historical data like
Nexmark
orDatagen
. So it can be confusing if the source executor runs itself and loses some records in the downstream materialized views created later.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So this seems to be another implementation besides MV-on-MV backfill and CDC backfill, since each of them seems to have a slightly different algorithm?
Hope that there's some abstraction for this new backfill executor, so that we don't have to introduce a physical executor every time we support a new source connector. 🥵
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, there is already pretty lots of duplication between MV-on-MV backfill and CDC backfill. I am not sure whether it's possible to DRY it. Anyway, either DRY or not is acceptable to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It might be worth noting that split changes should also be applied to
Backfill
executors, and...Backfill
andSource
could make life much easier.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 for both 2 items