-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 200
feat(format): partitioned bulk ingest API #4317
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
tokoko
wants to merge
3
commits into
apache:spec-1.2.0
Choose a base branch
from
tokoko:partitioned-ingest
base: spec-1.2.0
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@lidavidm I think we need to distinguish between 3 possible groups of status codes of a Complete call:
I couldn't really map retryable status to any existing status code. I'm thinking of adding either
ADBC_STATUS_CONFLICTorADBC_STATUS_RETRY. wdyt?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe just an out parameter to indicate whether it was success-or-retryable? A new status code would be a big change
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
let me push back a little. out param feels clean for C interface, but replicating the same for language apis will be a patchwork of different solutions, they would have to either go into exceptions or have additional output in the signature depending on the language. btw, what makes a new status code a big change, would something break? are there code paths that rely on exhaustive checks?
Another alternative is to put some additional metadata inside an Error message. That's probably abuse, but also could work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I hear you, but my worry is that a new error code could be in principle returned from any API function, which would break existing users.
If we say this code is only used for this particular API function, then I think it makes more sense for an out parameter than an error code (which has a non-local impact).
Also language bindings could use different strategies, e.g. Rust would return an
Result<PartitionedIngestStatus>or something and not an out parameter, and deal with the messiness at the FFI layer. This is already the case for various APIs (e.g. Java treats bulk ingest itself differently).