+1 Thanks for the KIP. Just a couple comments below: 1. Kafka APIs traditionally leave off `get` from API names. How about `groupMetadata` instead of `getMetadata`? 2. I am guessing memberId and groupInstanceId should be nullable in the TxnOffsetCommit schema? 3. Just to clarify on the upgrade process for streams, the two-step update is only required if you want strict guarantees about protection from zombies. Is that right? So if you just do it in one shot, it will still work, just you would be exposed to some edge cases.
Thanks, Jason On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:33 PM Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Guozhang, I have polished the design doc to make it sync with > current KIP. As for overriding default timeout values, I guess it's already > stated in the KIP to set txn timeout to 10s, are you suggesting we should > also put down this recommendation on the KIP for non-stream EOS users? > > Boyang > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:43 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello Boyang, > > > > Just realized one thing about timeout configurations that we should > > consider including in this KIP as well: > > > > 1) In Producer we have: max.block.ms (default value 60sec), > > request.timeout > > (30sec), delivery.timeout.ms (120sec), transaction.timeout (60sec) > > 2) In Consumer we have: session.timeout (10sec), request.timeout (30sec), > > default.api.timeout.ms (60sec). > > > > Within a transaction (i.e. after we've beginTxn), we could potentially > call > > consumer blocking APIs that depend on default.api.timeout.ms, and call > > producer blocking APIs that depend on max.block.ms. Also, if the user is > > following a consumer->producer pattern, then it could be kicked and > fenced > > either by txn or by consumer group session. > > > > So we want to make sure that in the caller, e.g. Kafka Streams: > > > > 1) transaction.timeout < max.block.ms > > 2) transaction.timeout < delivery.timeout.ms > > 3) transaction.timeout < default.api.timeout.ms > > 4) transaction.timeout ~= default.api.timeout.ms (I think this is > already > > mentioned in the KIP, just wanted to bring this up again) > > > > We do not need to override the default since not every users are > following > > the consumer -> producer pattern, but in cases like Streams where it is > > indeed the case, we should override the default values to obey the above > > rules. > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:47 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks Boyang, I'm +1 on the KIP. > > > > > > Could you also update the detailed design doc > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LhzHGeX7_Lay4xvrEXxfciuDWATjpUXQhrEIkph9qRE/edit > > which > > > seems a bit out-dated with the latest proposal? > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:45 AM Boyang Chen < > reluctanthero...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hey all, > > >> > > >> I would like to start the vote for KIP-447 > > >> < > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-447%3A+Producer+scalability+for+exactly+once+semantics > > >> >. > > >> This is a very important step to improve Kafka Streams scalability in > > >> exactly-once semantics, by avoiding linearly increasing number of > > >> producers > > >> with topic partition increases. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Boyang > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > >
