Skip to content

Conversation

@aljoscha
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@aljoscha aljoscha requested review from ggevay and teskje December 15, 2025 09:44
@aljoscha aljoscha requested review from a team as code owners December 15, 2025 09:44
Copy link
Contributor

@teskje teskje left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, if you can clarify the "we don't support sink alterations" comment.

Comment on lines 312 to 313
// Sink alterations are not yet supported - they would require
// re-creating the storage export with new parameters.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hm, but we do support ALTER SINK ... SET FROM. Am I missing something?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't support them in the implications framework. But I can add that as a commit on top

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd be happy with modifying the comment to make it clear that "not yet supported" is in the context of the implications, not in the context of Materialize!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll just restore the old debug logging 😅

async fn handle_create_sink(
&mut self,
storage_policies_to_initialize: &mut BTreeMap<CompactionWindow, BTreeSet<GlobalId>>,
_item_id: CatalogItemId,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why pass this parameter if we don't need it?

// pulling the rug from under us!

// TODO: Maybe in the future, pass those holds on to storage, to hold on
// │ to them and downgrade when possible?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
// to them and downgrade when possible?
// to them and downgrade when possible?

return;
}
Err(e) => {
ctx.retire(Err(e));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: If we need to call ctx.retire in every branch, we could pull it after the match, to make sure we never forget to do it. Also to remove a tiny amount of duplication.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll remove it, but I'm tempted to put a wrapper around the result massaging, to make sure we can't early-return without retiring the context.

@aljoscha aljoscha force-pushed the adapter-implications-create-sink branch from d0d5f69 to 8e60b80 Compare December 16, 2025 10:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants