[FLINK-34001][docs][table] Fix ambiguous document description towards the default value for configuring operator-level state TTL#24039
Merged
LadyForest merged 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom Jan 8, 2024
Conversation
Contributor
|
LGTM |
Collaborator
Contributor
Author
|
The CI failure is not relevant to the changes |
Contributor
Author
|
@flinkbot run azure |
Contributor
Author
|
The CI failure is caused by FLINK-34012 |
xuyangzhong
approved these changes
Jan 8, 2024
…s the default value for configuring operator-level state TTL
0025867 to
b43913d
Compare
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What is the purpose of the change
This is a trivial PR to eliminate the ambiguous description about the meaning of 0ms when configuring operator-level state TTL for SQL/TableAPI using compiled plan.
Brief change log
Change "state retention is not enabled" to "state never expires"
Verifying this change
This change is a trivial rework without any test coverage.
Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
@Public(Evolving): (yes / no)Documentation