-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 319
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
[#4551] feat(iceberg): add S3 and GCS support for IcebergRESTService docker image #5243
Conversation
@jerryshao @yuqi1129 @jerqi please help to review, thanks |
|
||
cd ${iceberg_rest_server_dir} | ||
|
||
python bin/rewrite_config.py |
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.
Is the python command installed by default?
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.
yes, it's installed in docker image
dev/docker/iceberg-rest-server/iceberg-rest-server-dependency.sh
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Please update the doc |
updated, please help to review again |
config_map = parse_config_file(config_file_path) | ||
|
||
for k, v in init_config.items(): | ||
update_config(config_map, k, v) |
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.
You can make the dict config_map
as the method parameter and do not need to call the method several time.
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.
it could improve the performance, but the current implementation is more extensiable, I think this is more important, 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.
What do you mean by more extensiable
? do you mean we can easily support more properties in this way?
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.
yes, like what env_map
is processed
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 mean we can change it into the following kind:
update_config(config_map, init_config):
for key, value in init_config.items():
config_map[config_prefix + key] = value
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.
Then how to process env_map
?
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.
Since the method contains only one simple sentence, I can't find the difference that you replace it with config[config_prefix + key] = value
directly if insist on this the way.
def update_config(config, key, value):
config[config_prefix + key] = value
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.
If just for performance, I prefer not to change it. You suggest to pass map to update_config
, seems difficult to process env_map
?
@yuqi1129 any other comments? @jerryshao do you have time to review again? |
I have no further comments. |
…docker image (#5243) ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? 1. add AWS and GCP bundle jar to IcebergRESTServer docker image 2. use environment variable to change the config ### Why are the changes needed? Fix: #4551 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no ### How was this patch tested? run SQL with access S3 and GCS data
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Why are the changes needed?
Fix: #4551
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
no
How was this patch tested?
run SQL with access S3 and GCS data