Skip to content
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

[Feature Request]: allow users to provide their own JdbcReadWithPartitionsHelper #27120

Closed
1 of 15 tasks
hughlunnon opened this issue Jun 13, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #31733
Closed
1 of 15 tasks

[Feature Request]: allow users to provide their own JdbcReadWithPartitionsHelper #27120

hughlunnon opened this issue Jun 13, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #31733

Comments

@hughlunnon
Copy link

What would you like to happen?

at the moment, readWithPartition is limited to the data types of Long, DateTime. It would be great for users to be able to provide their own JdbcReadWithPartitionsHelper (the interface exists) to allow them to partition on other key types (eg strings).

I'm happy to add it to the java sdk, no idea if the problem exists on other sdks?

Issue Priority

Priority: 3 (nice-to-have improvement)

Issue Components

  • Component: Python SDK
  • Component: Java SDK
  • Component: Go SDK
  • Component: Typescript SDK
  • Component: IO connector
  • Component: Beam examples
  • Component: Beam playground
  • Component: Beam katas
  • Component: Website
  • Component: Spark Runner
  • Component: Flink Runner
  • Component: Samza Runner
  • Component: Twister2 Runner
  • Component: Hazelcast Jet Runner
  • Component: Google Cloud Dataflow Runner
@Abacn
Copy link
Contributor

Abacn commented Jun 16, 2023

Thanks! This is a nice feature to have. For other SDK (Python) because it is configured by schema, so user cannot pass an object (like Python function) to config ReadFromJdbc

@Amar3tto
Copy link
Contributor

Amar3tto commented Jul 1, 2024

.take-issue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants