Hey Bill, Thanks! I was just going to say that hopefully transactional.id.expiration.ms would also be over the delivery timeout. :) Thanks for the +1!
Justine On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 9:17 AM Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Justine, > > I just took another look at the KIP, and I realize my question/suggestion > about default values has already been addressed in the `Compatibility` > section. > > I'm +1 on the KIP. > > -Bill > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 6:20 PM Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Justine, > > > > Thanks for the well written KIP, this looks like it will be a useful > > addition. > > > > Overall the KIP looks good to me, I have one question/comment. > > > > You mentioned that setting the `producer.id.expiration.ms` less than the > > delivery timeout could lead to duplicates, which makes sense. To help > > avoid this situation, do we want to consider a default value that is the > > same as the delivery timeout? > > > > Thanks again for the KIP. > > > > Bill > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 4:54 PM Justine Olshan > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Hey all! > >> > >> I'd like to start a discussion on my proposal to separate time-based > >> producer ID expiration from transactional ID expiration by introducing a > >> new configuration. > >> > >> The KIP Is pretty small and simple, but will be helpful in controlling > >> memory usage in brokers -- especially now that by default producers are > >> idempotent and create producer ID state. > >> > >> Please take a look and leave any comments you may have! > >> > >> KIP: > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-854+Separate+configuration+for+producer+ID+expiry > >> JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14097 > >> > >> Thanks! > >> Justine > >> > > >
