[DISCUSS] FLIP-162: Consistent Flink SQL time function behavior

[Leonard Xu]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:
>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the window time range
>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical results will
>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone manually in
>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>

[Timo Walther-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email] <mailto:
>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the window time range
>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical results will
>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone manually in
>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>

[Jark Wu-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> <mailto:
> >>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
> [hidden email]>>>
> >>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ).&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the window time
> range
> >>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical results
> will
> >>>>>>>>>> naturally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone manually in
> >>>> order to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Jingsong Li]

+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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]
> > <mailto:
> > >>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
> > [hidden email]>>>
> > >>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >>>> 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >>>> 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> > >>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ).&nbsp;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the window time
> > range
> > >>>> of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical results
> > will
> > >>>>>>>>>> naturally
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone manually in
> > >>>> order to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

--
Best, Jingsong Lee

[Timo Walther-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
>>> [hidden email]>>>
>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> 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 <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>> 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 <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the window time
>>> range
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical results
>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone manually in
>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Kurt Young]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> 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 <[hidden email]
> >>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
> >>> [hidden email]>>>
> >>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> >>>>>>> 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 <
> >>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> 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 <
> >>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ).&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the window time
> >>> range
> >>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical results
> >>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone manually
> in
> >>>>>>> order to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Kurt Young]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> >> 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 <[hidden email]
>> >>> <mailto:
>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
>> >>> [hidden email]>>>
>> >>>>>>> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >>>>>>> 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 <
>> >>> [hidden email]>
>> >>>>>>> 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 <
>> >>> [hidden email]>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> ：
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ).&nbsp;
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the window time
>> >>> range
>> >>>>>>> of the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical
>> results
>> >>> will
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone manually
>> in
>> >>>>>>> order to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>

[Fabian Hueske-2]

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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> >> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> >> >>> <mailto:
> >> >>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
> >> >>> [hidden email]>>>
> >> >>>>>>> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >>>>>>> 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 <
> >> >>> [hidden email]>
> >> >>>>>>> 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 <
> >> >>> [hidden email]>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> >> ：
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> ：
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ).&nbsp;
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the window
> time
> >> >>> range
> >> >>>>>>> of the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical
> >> results
> >> >>> will
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
> manually
> >> in
> >> >>>>>>> order to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>

[Jark Wu-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >> >> 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > >> >>> <mailto:
> > >> >>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
> > >> >>> [hidden email]>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> 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 <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> >>>>>>> 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 <
> > >> >>> [hidden email]>
> > >> >>>>>>> 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 <
> > >> >>> [hidden email]>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> > >> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >> ：
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > ：
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> ：
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> ).&nbsp;
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the window
> > time
> > >> >>> range
> > >> >>>>>>> of the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical
> > >> results
> > >> >>> will
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
> > manually
> > >> in
> > >> >>>>>>> order to
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> ：
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>

[Stephan Ewen]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> 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 <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >>> <mailto:
> > > >> >>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
> > > >> >>> [hidden email]>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>> 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 <
> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >>>>>>> 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 <
> > > >> >>> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >>>>>>> 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 <
> > > >> >>> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> > > >> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> ：
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > ：
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]>
> ：
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> ：
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > ).&nbsp;
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
> window
> > > time
> > > >> >>> range
> > > >> >>>>>>> of the
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical
> > > >> results
> > > >> >>> will
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
> > > manually
> > > >> in
> > > >> >>>>>>> order to
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > ：
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

[Johannes Moser]

Hello,

I will work with some users to get data on that.

Thanks, Joe

> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]>
>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>> ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
>> window
>>>> time
>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical
>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>> manually
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

[Leonard Xu]

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>
> Thanks, Joe
>
> > On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >:
> >>>
> >>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>> ).&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
> >> window
> >>>> time
> >>>>>>>>> range
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical
> >>>>>> results
> >>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
> >>>> manually
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

[Johannes Moser]

Hi,

Sorry it took some time, here are my findings:

The sentiment was:
        • This will only be an issue when you face it.
        • Generally urging for semantics (batch > time of first query issued, streaming > row level).
        • Not necessarily introducing new functions, but rather doing it via a config that could also be passed e.g. in connection strings, modifying the behaviour to stay consistent with the dialect.
        • When I discussed the whole picture with batch, bounded streams, unbounded streams it was rather confusing to them > we should simplify this, also provide a clear concept moving forward, the essence was still batch > correct sql behavior, stream > 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).

Hope this helps,

Thanks,
Joe

> On 19.02.2021, at 10:25, Leonard Xu <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>
>> Thanks, Joe
>>
>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
>>>> window
>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical
>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

[Leonard Xu]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>
>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
>>>>> window
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical
>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Timo Walther-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>
>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the statistical
>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Timo Walther-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> 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 <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Kurt Young]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks, Joe
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> >>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> 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 <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>> ).&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
> >>>>>>> window
> >>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
> >>>>>>>>>>> results
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
> >>>>>>>>> manually
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>> ：
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Timo Walther-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> 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 <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Leonard Xu]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[Timo Walther-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will work with some users to get data on that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Joe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 03.02.2021, at 14:58, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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,&nbsp; 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> ).&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If use the default Flink SQL,&nbsp; the
>>>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistics is incorrect, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user needs to deal with the time zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem.&nbsp;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>