Add backfill option to into clause parser #662

[dhammika]

Patch to add backfill flag to parser. I'll send a separate patch to hook this up with continuous query logic.

Signed-off-by: Dhammika Pathirana dhammika@gmail.com

[pauldix]

Is it possible to do a structure with this so backfill isn't named in the parser directly? Something more along the lines of: it will parse a function call with any number of parameters.

Then use that function name (in this case backfill) to map to a collection of continuous query modification functions. Seems like it would be nice to make other functions or modifications to backfill easier later.

Although maybe I'm over thinking things?

[dhammika]

This is my first stab at this and I was going by your query sample in #662
Can we add this generic extension later? I'm still trying to grok continuous query logic, I'd like to complete that first.

[jvshahid]

I think new features should be discussed on the mailing list first, especially when it touches the query language or any other user facing api. I don't think we need to have a generic solution at the moment. Instead i prefer a much simpler syntax with no backfill at the end of the query to disable the backfilling. Again, I don't have any strong opinion, discussing these kind of things on the mailing list will get us more feedback from other users and help us make a decision.

[pauldix]

@jvshahid then this one is my bad. @dhammika was just implementing based on the issue I logged: #662. I'm fine with changing the syntax to just no backfill

I was thinking of the function type to make room for later implementing #211 to recalculate previous continuous query time frames.

[dhammika]

I just added continuous query hooks, let me know what you guys think.
I'll patch the syntax once we decide what's best there.

[pauldix]

Thanks @dhammika! I think it looks good. I would update the backfill to be no backfill like @jvshahid mentioned. Also, can you add a test that verifies creation of a continuous query without backfill? You should be able to add it in multiple_servers_test.rb. Use https://github.com/influxdb/influxdb/blob/master/src/integration/multiple_servers_test.go#L1086-L1131 as a guide.

[dhammika]

@pauldix @jvshahid I added test for this, let me know what you guys think.
BTW what's the verdict on syntax for this, looks like backfill(xx) is quite popular.

[jvshahid]

@dhammika can you sign the CLA. You can find the CLA on the website here http://influxdb.com/community/cla.html

[jvshahid]

Once the cla is signed, I'll merge this into master

[dhammika]

@jvshahid I just submitted the CLA.
FYI, the CLA form doesn't seem to work on firefox.